LOUISIANA PROGRESS JOURNAL

Issue 2:2 - April 2011 - A Project of the Coalition for Louisiana Progress

Is Louisiana on the
Right Track?
Insight into the 2011
Legislative Session

INSIDE:
• Prisons for Sale
• Poverty in Louisiana
• Equality & Diversity
• Inadequate School Facilities
Inform Engage Mobilize
• Respect Science Education
www.louisianaprogress.org
Welcome! In This Issue
This issue of the Louisiana Progress Journal focuses on the
difficult and important decisions legislatures will have to
04 Welcome to the Carnival of
make this session. The issue leads off with some of the
Louisiana Politics
results from the most recent Louisiana Survey, which Melissa Flournoy
policymakers should use to frame their approach to the
state’s problems. One thing is clear: the people of Louisiana
want solutions.
07 Overview of the 2011
The articles that follow focus on some of the tough ques- Louisiana Survey
tions and solutions legislators will grapple with this sesion:
Jason Turcotte, Kirby Goidel
How to close a budget deficit of $1.6 billion? Health care
services to the poor are likely to be on the chopping block.
Could we raise taxes on cigarettes to offset some of these 12 Raising Cigarette Taxes:
cuts to and improve the health of our state? A Win, Win, Win
Will turning state prisons over to private interests really The Louisiana Budget Project
save Louisiana money? What are the costs to jobs, local
economies and the criminal justice system?

Will the Louisiana Science and Education Act have a detri-

15 Pathways to Prosperity:
mental effect on the education of our future workforce and Poverty in Louisiana
how businesses perceive Louisiana? Can we attract new Melissa Flournoy
businesses, especially in the coveted technology and creative
arts sectors, if we don’t provide basic protections against
discrimination to our employees?
19 Penny-Wise, Pound
As you read these pages and consider the challenges we face Foolish: Prisons for Sale
as a state, we hope you’ll join Louisiana Progress as we build
a network of citizens, advocates and policy makers to work Ryan West
together to solve the state’s most difficult problems and
improve the quality of life for all Louisiana families.
23 Equity, Inclusion and
Equality
SarahJane E. Brady

29 Roofs and Rain: Education

Facilities Matter
The Cowen Institute for Public Education
Editors:
Matt Bailey, Melissa Flournoy, Genevieve Pope

The Louisiana Progress Journal provides a forum for our 35 Respect Requires Repeal:
authors to express their views on how best to move The LA Science Education
Louisiana forward. The opinions expressed are those Act of 2008
of the authors alone and do not express the views of the
editorial board, Louisiana Progress, or the other authors. Barbara Forrest
4 Commentary
Welcome to the Carnival of
Louisiana Politics
Melissa Flournoy
As this article is written the Legislature is mid-way through
a special session on redistricting, an event that occurs every
ten years following the completion of the national census.
Profound is the contrast at the state capitol in Baton Rouge
between a redistricting session--which brings to mind
nothing so much as the famous statement by the political
philosopher Thomas Hobbes of life being nasty, brutish
and short--and a regular session of the legislature-the long
hot summer of our discontent. Except for legislators, other
elected officials and legislative staff, the Capitol today is
largely empty. Given the contentiousness of a redistricting
session, the 600 or so professional lobbyists who normally
stalk its halls know better than to hang out at the Capitol.
For the regular session of the Louisiana Legislature begin-
ning on April 25th the scene will be quite different. With
a regular legislative session the Capitol building takes on
a near carnival like atmosphere, with hundreds of people
from different walks of life moving about the
place. A casual visitor would find hun-
dreds of lobbyists, maybe
some French or
Louisiana Progress
Canadian tourists, perhaps a young bride -to-be in her
gown having wedding pictures taken. Our visitor would
find it impossible to discern what is really going on, how
government works in such an environment, but he would be
mistaken to think that all of the activity is random. Hardly,
for in addition to the routine business of government much
of what goes on during a regular session of the legislature
amounts to the protection and promotion of special inter-
ests.
Are the people’s interests special?
What are these special interests? How are they protected
and promoted? Do they benefit the people of Louisiana?
There are hundreds of special interests represented daily at
the Capitol ranging from the Louisiana Association of Busi-
ness and Industry, to public officials such as the Sheriffs’
Association to Video Poker Truck Stops to Nursing Homes
to the American Cancer Society, but it is big corporate
interests--the oil and gas, chemical, tobacco, and insurance
industries, to name a few--that hold sway today. Little oc-
curs that undermines these interests, and a whole lot occurs
that protects and promotes them. The most powerful folks
at the capitol may be a handful of key lobbyists who have
been there for thirty years or more. With term lim-
its, the legislators come and go, but the lobby-
ists and the corporate interests are pro-
viding the stability and institutional
knowledge in the legislature.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Corporate Orientation of the
Legislature
Many first term legislators are surprised to find several
hundred new best friends when they arrive at the Capitol.
Although changes made to Louisiana’s code of ethics several
years ago reduced what a lobbyist can spend on food and
drink for a legislator from no limit at all to $50, it’s still 50
bucks. This may not seem like much money; indeed legisla-
tors often say the idea that they can be bought for $50 is
preposterous, and they are quite right. But it is amazing to
see how their thinking seems to fall in line with these lobby-
ists after the 20th, 50th, or 100th meal. Those lunches and
other social interactions allow lobbyists to cultivate relation-
ships with key legislators, and as those bonds strengthen,
legislators become more inclined to vote in a way that does
not harm the interests of their friends. Before you know it,
a little money and human nature interact in a way that ends
up benefiting special interests.
Are the People’s Voices Drowned
out by the Work of Special Interests?
Workplace safety, our environment, an individual’s access to
our judicial system, funding for public education and other
public services--the list goes on and on--all suffer as Louisi-
ana’s special interests pursue their own ends. In short, is the
protection and promotion of special interests fundamentally
at odds with the public interest? Maybe…
Louisiana legislators are faced with scores of complicated
issues and it is impossible for them to have background
knowledge on every topic. Lobbyists for corporate interests
have a wealth of resources and information at their disposal
and serve an important function in informing policymak-
ers. However, there are some special interests that more
directly represent the people of Louisiana and they, too, are
valuable advocates and sources of information for the legis-
lators. There are many good government and accountability
organizations and nonprofits representing the disabled and
homeless, health and hospitals, and all manner of education
and social services issues that are at the Capitol with staff
and volunteers making the case for the people they serve.
Unfortunately, many are not well funded in their advocacy
efforts and and thus can be drowned out by well-funded,
well-organized, and well-staffed corporate interests. Still,
they can be a powerful force for the interests they advance,
especially for legislators who seek out their advice and
expertise.
Commentary 5
But special interests, corporate or otherwise, do not always
win out. Although special interests’ access and resources
do disproportionately affect the outcomes on many issues, a
few phone calls from informed voters back home can make
a huge difference. Increasing citizen engagement from the
voters is needed on important issues that affect real people.
Getting information out to citizens has improved with
legislative websites and better real time access to activities
at the Capitol, www.legis.state.la.us. We need to encourage
citizens to take advantage of these resources to be better
informed, engaged and to mobilize on issues of importance.
Good government advocacy groups and corporate interest
groups both know that personal relationships with legisla-
tors do matter, but legislators also want to hear from the
people back home. Voters do still matter, but if they are
not heard from, sometimes it is out of sight, out of mind.
Engaging more citizens in the legislative process is essential
to protect the people’s interests.
A few phone calls from informed
voters can make a huge difference:
legislators want to hear from
the people back home.
Elections Matter!
In this climate of special interests vying for the attention
of lawmakers, it is crucial that the legislature is filled with
public servants who have the people’s interest at heart. This
year is an election year for the legislature and statewide
offices. With redistricting nearly finished, there are new
opportunities for people to step into the arena and run
for the legislature. But new people face tremendous chal-
lenges running against incumbents. Local organizations
and communities need to hold elected officials account-
able and where necessary rally to encourage new leaders
to run. If good people don’t run, then good people don’t
win. As many current state leaders continue to implement
failed policies of the past, energetic new leaders need to join
the fray and pursue new, more progressive solutions to old
problems.
6 Commentary
Money Matters!
With nearly bottomless pockets, corporate interests out-
spend all others in terms of political contributions. Di-
rect contributions are given to candidates sympathetic to
corporate interests, and these contributions work to defeat
or weaken those who are not. In addition to making direct
contributions to candidates, corporate interests hire their
own political consultants--media consultants, pollsters,
direct mail experts and others--to work with candidates.
The recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens
United now allows corporate interests to spend at will on in-
dependent campaigns in support of candidates they like or
in opposition to those they don’t. The federal constitution’s
protection of free (political) speech is no longer a level play-
ing field, if it ever was. Those with the most money have the
freest--and loudest--political speech, loud enough to all but
drown out all others.
People Matter!
But corporate interests can’t do one critical thing---they
can’t vote. And voters do matter in elections. So citizens
need to pay attention to redistricting, know what’s going on
in the legislature, and be concerned with who is running
for office. Local community leaders need to be engaged
in developing young leaders and encouraging people to be
active in the political process and to run for office. We need
to encourage voter involvement and engagement in working
on campaigns, supporting candidates and paying attention
to elections. Elections matter!
Protecting the People’s Interests
Louisiana Progress wants to encourage citizens to be
informed, be engaged and to mobilize around issues of
importance to the future of Louisiana.
This issue of the Louisiana Progress Journal focuses on some
of the issues that legislators will confront this session: the
state budget, taxes, privatization of prisons, repeal of cre-
ationism, the implications of poverty, school facilities and
equality issues such as second parent adoption.
The issue leads off with some of the results of the most
recent LSU Public Opinion Poll, which policymakers should
use to frame their approach to the state’s problems; one
thing is clear: the people of Louisiana want solutions.
This session, legislators will struggle with a budget deficit
of $1.6 billion with some seeking to balance the budget by
Louisiana Progress
cutting education, health care, social services, state parks,
tourism and selling off prisons and the Office of State Group
Benefits. The articles in this issue with grapple with some of
the tough policy decisions legislators will be asked to make
when they consider how to fill the budget shortfall.
There will be bills promoting more tax exemptions for
corporate special interests and efforts to protect the $7.1
billion in existing tax exemptions. But do we really want to
give away more state dollars or should we stop the increase
in tax exemptions and even roll back a few tax exemp-
tions? Health care services to the poor are likely to be on
the chopping block. But can we raise taxes on cigarettes to
offset some of these cuts to and ensure quality health care to
all Louisianans? Our prisons may be put up for sale. Will
turning them over to private interests really save Louisiana
money? What are the costs to jobs, local economies and the
criminal justice system?
The legislators will also take up other issues that do not
directly impact the budget, and the articles that follow will
provide insight into some of these topics as well. Louisi-
ana continues to rank at or near the bottom on indicators
of education, poverty, health, and wealth. What can be
done to provide economic development opportunities to
help people living in poverty? Louisiana’s government and
business leaders tout the state as a great place to do busi-
ness. However, will the Louisiana Science and Education
Act have a detrimental effect on the education level of our
future workforce and how businesses perceive Louisiana’s
commitment to rigorous science education? Can we attract
new businesses, especially those in the coveted technology
and creative arts sectors, if we are not seen as tolerant?
Focus on Solving Problems
Louisiana Progress is building a formidable network of
community leaders, advocates, and policymakers work-
ing together to solve the state's most difficult problems and
improve the quality of life for all Louisiana families.
Louisiana Progress advocates for effective solutions to the
policy challenges that continue to shackle Louisiana to the
past.
Melissa Flournoy is the Director of Louisiana Progress
and a former State Representative from Shreveport.
She earned her Ph.D. in Political Science from LSU.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize Overview of the 2011 Louisiana Survey 7

Overview of the 2011

Louisiana Survey
Jason Turcotte, Kirby Goidel
In the following pages, we provide a brief summary of the
2011 Louisiana Survey. The Louisiana Survey is an annual
survey conducted by Louisiana State University’s Reilly
Center for Media and Public Affairs and the Manship
School of Mass Communications designed to track changes
in public opinion statewide over time. Each year, it has
grown in value as events and conditions drive important
changes in public perceptions, opinions, and behaviors. In
2011, it captures public opinion as the state grapples with an
ongoing budget crisis brought about by a national economic
recession and subsequent declines in state tax revenues.
The 2011 Louisiana Survey is a telephone survey of 725
randomly selected Louisiana residents, including 215 cell
phone respondents. The overall survey has a margin of error
of +/- 3.6 percentage points.
thors. For a complete copy of the results, go to www.survey.
lsu.edu.
A Decline in the Right Direction
One of the headlines out of the 2011 Louisiana Survey is the
decline in the percent of residents saying the state is headed
in the right direction. Since 2010, the percent of Louisian-
ans saying that the state is heading in the right direction
declined from 47.5 percent to 41.1 percent. The percent
saying the state is moving in the wrong direction increased
from 38.4 percent to 42.5 percent, and the percent saying
they were unsure increased from 14.1 to 16.4 percent.

The results show a public with conflicting opinions on

spending cuts to valued areas of state government, such as
higher education and health care, raising taxes, and cutting
the budget. The public recognizes the severity of the budget
deficit, but expresses contradictory and ambivalent prefer-
ences on how best to address the shortfall. This is perhaps
best illustrated in abstract support for spending cuts but
opposition to cuts in areas where spending is the greatest.
Similarly, pledges not to raise taxes capture general public
approval, but fail to capture more nuanced views toward
specific taxes, including strong support for so-called sin
taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and gaming.

The ongoing state budget crisis has also taken a toll on the
public’s confidence in state government. In 2011, there was
notable increase in the percent of residents saying the state
is heading in the wrong direction. Adding to the budgetary
woes is a stagnant economy, and 2011 saw and substantial
increase in the percent of residents identifying the economy
as the state’s most pressing concern and a significant de-
crease in the percent of Louisianans who are confident that
the state can resolve its most pressing problems.
Below is the summary of some of the most striking results
of the survey. The excerpts and graphics are taken largely
from the Louisiana Survey, with the permission of the au-
The Growing Importance of Economic
Concerns
With the exception of the post-Katrina surveys in 2006,
residents have consistently named the economy and educa-
tion as the state’s most pressing problems. This year is no ex-
ception. In an open-ended question, 36 percent of residents
identified the economy as the most pressing issue confront-
ing the state while 24 percent identified education. The next
most important problem, the state budget, was identified by
8 Overview of the 2011 Louisiana Survey Louisiana Progress

percentage points since its peak in 2009. Though Louisian-

ans are certainly less confident in state government today,
uncertainty over how to combat budget shortfalls remains.

10.7 percent followed by health care (8.8 percent) and crime

(6.4 percent).

Over time the economy has grown in importance as the top

public concern. Since 2010, the percent of residents iden-
tifying the economy as their top concern has increased by
over 5 percentage points from 29.9 percent to 35.5 percent.
Prior to the Wall Street collapse in 2008, the economy never
topped education as the top concern in the state. Since Raising Taxes, Cutting Spending, and
2008, the economy is not only the top public concern but
the gap between the economy and other concerns appears
the Politics of the Budget Shortfall
to be growing. And since 2007, there has been a nearly
A plurality of Louisiana residents (46 percent) prefer deal-
26 percentage point increase in the percent of residents
ing with budget shortfalls through some combination of
identifying the economy as their top concern. As a result,
spending cuts and tax increases while slightly fewer (44 per-
more people now identify the economy as the state’s most
cent) prefer addressing the shortfall through spending cuts
important problem than at any time since we began collect-
alone. Only 5 percent of respondents prefer dealing with
ing data in 2003.
budget shortfalls by only raising taxes and 4 percent said
they did not know or were unsure. Since 2010, there has
Education, identified by just under a quarter of residents (24
been a 5-point decline in the number of respondents saying
percent), remains a top concern. Tying both of these issues
budget shortfalls should be dealt with through a combina-
together are concerns about the budget. Eleven percent of
tion of spending cuts and tax increases. Overall, opinion is
respondents cited the state budget as the most important
fairly divided between respondents who prefer addressing
problem reflecting concerns about the economy and its
the shortfall solely through spending cuts and those who
impact on the budget and potential cuts to health care and
prefer a more balanced approach.
higher education.
Louisianans also remain split on the question of whether
An Ongoing Decline in Confidence state budget cuts have gone too far or have not gone far
enough: 40 percent of respondents say budget cuts have
One of the headlines from the 2010 Louisiana Survey was a gone too far compared to 39 percent who say budget cuts
notable 10.5-point decline in confidence that state govern- have not gone far enough. An additional 13 percent say they
ment would effectively address the state’s most important do not know or are not sure and 6 percent volunteered that
problem. In 2011, the decline is not nearly as sharp – 4 state budget cuts are about right. These perceptions re-
percentage points – but continues a long-term trend toward mained remarkably stable over the past year with only slight
declining confidence. In 2010, 54 percent of respondents changes across the various categories.
said they were very or somewhat confident state govern-
ment would effectively address their self-identified most
important problem. This dropped to 50 percent in 2010.
Looking at the long term trend, confidence has declined 14
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Reconsidering the Stelly Repeal
Respondents continue to express buyer’s remorse over the
repeal of the Stelly Plan. A majority of respondents (59
percent) said the repeal of the Stelly Plan was a bad idea
because it cost state revenue and contributed to the current
budget shortfall. Twenty-six percent of respondents said it
was a good idea to repeal the Stelly Plan and 15 percent said
they did not know or had not given it enough thought. The
percent of respondents saying repealing the Stelly Plan was
a bad idea increased from 42 percent in 2009 to 51 percent
in 2010 and to 59 percent in 2011. Because the questions
were not identical it is not clear if the increase is due to
slight changes in question wording or an increase in the
percent who believe the repeal was bad idea.
We also find public support for temporarily reinstating the
Stelly income tax provisions as a mechanism for address-
ing contemporary budget shortfalls. Nearly 56 percent of
respondents said they would support such a proposal while
Overview of the 2011 Louisiana Survey 9
29 percent were opposed and 15 percent said they did not
know or were unsure. Republicans are less supportive of
temporarily reinstating the Stelly tax provisions. Forty-three
percent of Republicans are opposed to temporarily reinstat-
ing Stelly compared to 24 percent of Democrats. Notably, a
plurality of Republicans (45 percent) support temporarily
reinstating Stelly.
Concerns About State Income and
Sales Taxes Remain Flat
On the tax side of the revenue coin, there appears to be
no signs of tax revolt in the making. Over the past several
years, public concerns that state income and sales taxes are
too high and need to be reduced have remained relatively
flat. Long-term concerns over state taxes have declined
significantly after the 2008 repeal of the Stelly Plan. Per-
ceptions that state income taxes are too high and need to
be reduced increased slightly from 41 to 42 percent while
concern about state sales taxes decreased slightly from 31
percent to 28 percent.
Support for Tax Increases
Support for specific types of taxes is highly conditional with
the public expressing strong support for sin taxes but much
less support for broad based taxes or across the board in-
creases in state income taxes. As in the 2010 survey, there is
considerable support for sin taxes including taxes on gam-
ing (85 percent), alcohol (76 percent), and tobacco (73 per-
cent). Moreover, we continue to find majority support (57
percent) for increasing taxes on individuals earning more
than $100,000 and households earning more than $150,000.
There is more limited support for raising the state sales tax
by one or two cents (43 percent) and little or no support
10 Overview of the 2011 Louisiana Survey Louisiana Progress

for increasing state taxes on gasoline and oil (9 percent) or
reducing or eliminating the homestead exemption (29 per-
cent). As a general rule, the more broadly a tax reaches into
the population, the less public support it generates.
Contingent Support for Tax Increases
Respondents are also more willing to consider tax increases
when the tax is dedicated to a specific use or purpose. For
example, while very few respondents support increasing
taxes on gas and oil, a majority (52 percent) support in-
creasing gas taxes if the money is specifically dedicated to
improving state roads, highways, and other infrastructure.
Similarly, 61 percent support increasing state income taxes
if the additional revenue is dedicated specifically to either
state colleges and universities or state health care, respec-
tively. Support for taxes is clearly tied to perceptions of how
the taxes will be used, whether they will be used to address
an important public concern, and confidence that state gov-
ernment officials will use the money wisely. With state bud-
get matters closely connected to education, higher learning
remains a paramount concern to many Louisianans.
Opinion Divided on Tuition Increases
If the public is reluctant to cut spending to higher educa-
tion, what options are they willing to support to reduce or
pay the costs of higher education? Louisiana residents are
reluctant to give colleges the flexibility to raise tuition and
fees. A plurality (48 percent) disagrees or strongly disagrees
that state colleges and universities should be able to raise
tuition and fees to offset state budget cuts. Forty-two per-
cent of respondents, alternatively, believe state colleges and
universities should be able to raise tuition and fees.
Opposition to greater control over tuition is rooted in age,
race and education with younger, African-American, and
respondents with some college most likely to disagree with
the idea that colleges and universities should raise tuition
and fees to offset state budget cuts.

Opinion on Higher Education

When it comes to issues on the public agenda, none loom
larger than higher education. This is mostly structural as
higher education bears the brunt of budget cuts during eco-
nomic downturns but there are longer term considerations
as well. While the $1.6 billion budget shortfall makes chang-
ing the state system of higher education more urgent, it has
long been argued that Louisiana has too many four-year
colleges and universities and not enough two-year technical
and community colleges.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize Overview of the 2011 Louisiana Survey 11
Opposition to Consolidating
State Colleges
Likewise there is little support for closing or consolidating
state colleges or universities. Seventy-one percent of Louisi-
ana residents oppose closing or consolidating state colleges
and universities, while just over a quarter of respondents
(26 percent) support consolidation.

Conclusion
Given the contradictions and ambivalence in public opinion
expressed in the 2011 Louisiana Survey, it would be easy to
dismiss public preferences as ill-informed. This would be a
mistake. The Louisiana public expresses growing concern
about the direction of the state as an ongoing budget crisis
appears no closer to resolution in 2011 than in 2010 or
2009. They express a remarkable openness to various solu-
tions for solving the budget problem, including spending MOVING LOUISIANA FORWARD
cuts and selective tax increases. While this can be frustrat-
ing for leaders who want policies to reflect public support The Louisiana Progress Journal is a project of the
and who prefer straightforward interpretations, it can be Coalition for Louisiana Progress, a nonprofit organi-
liberating for politicians who recognize the potential to step zation that connects citizens across all political par-
into the void, think seriously about an array of potential so- ties, races, and religions to develop, advocate for, and
lutions, and offer effective leadership focused on problem- implement innovative, effective, and practical solu-
solving rather than politics. tions to the policy challenges that continue to shackle
Louisiana to the past.

We engage individuals, communities and organiza-

The Louisiana Survey, established in 2002 by the
Reilly Center for Media & Public Affairs, is conducted
annually for policy makers and leaders and measures
residents’ attitudes about state government and gov-
ernment services.
The Louisiana Survey captures the policy preferences,
evaluations and expectations of Louisiana citizens,
and in doing so, provides an important historic re-
cord of where the state has been and key insight into
Louisiana’s future. The Louisiana Survey has become
a valuable tool to broadcast the voice of the Louisiana
public to policy-makers and leaders.
tions, building a formidable network of community
leaders, advocates, activists, and policymakers who,
working together, solve the state's most difficult and
pervasive problems and improve the quality of life for
all people of the state.
Louisiana Progress invites you to join us. Please visit
our website, www.louisianaprogress.org, to learn
more, sign up to receive updates on our work, and
donate. We can achieve our goals only though the
generosity of our supporters.
JOIN OUR NETWORK
facebook.com/laprogress

To learn more, or to access to full survey and archives, @laprogress

visit: www.survey.lsu.edu
feedburner.com/louisianaprogress
12 Raising Cigarette Taxes Louisiana Progress

RAISING CIGARETTE TAXES

WIN,WIN,WIN.

Increase Revenues, Lower Health Care Costs and Reduce Smoking

Louisiana is in the midst of a crisis of historic proportions. Public needs are growing and the resources it takes to meet them
have shrunk. To solve this crisis—to get Louisiana’s budget out of the ditch—without further damaging institutions and reduc-
ing services critical to the state’s future growth, will take more than a cuts-only strategy. Instead we need a more balanced ap-
proach, one that includes additional sources of revenues. This Research Note is the third in a series of revenue proposals aimed
at helping Louisiana solve its problems in a responsible way that promotes job-creation and future prosperity.
. . .

Louisiana Budget Project
Louisiana remains one of the least expensive places in the
country to buy cigarettes. According to America’s Health
Rankings by the United Health Foundation, Louisiana also
has the ninth highest smoking rate and the second worst
overall health record, due, in part, to high rates of cancer
and cardiovascular deaths, hypertension, and racial dispari-
ties in access to health care, all of which smoking makes
worse.1
There is significant research that shows higher prices reduce
long-term demand for cigarettes by discouraging smok-
ing by young people, thus promoting better overall health
in communities across the country.2 By raising taxes on
cigarettes, the state could generate much needed revenue to
help close the projected $1.6 billion budget shortfall for the
upcoming fiscal year, provide money for necessities such as
public education, colleges and universities, health care, and
public safety, and reduce the number of people, especially
children, who smoke.3 That’s a win, win, win for the state.
Current law taxes cigarettes at 36 cents per pack.
The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids reports that, since
2002, “47 states, D.C., and several U.S. territories have
increased their cigarette tax rates more than 100 times.”
Louisiana last increased its tax on tobacco in 2002, when
the Legislature approved a 12 cent per pack tax increase
and extended until June 30, 2012, a 4 cent per pack increase
passed in 2000. Last year, tobacco taxes, including the taxes
on cigarettes, generated $137 million in revenue and are
projected to bring in a similar amount this year. However,
Louisiana is poised to lose $12 million per year when the
tax extension passed in 2002 expires in 2012, worsening an
already bad revenue situation.
Increasing cigarette taxes by one dollar a pack – to $1.36
– would add approximately $301 million a year to the
state’s coffers and bring Louisiana in line with the rest of
the country,4 according to an analysis by the Institute on

1 “America’s Health Rankings. Louisiana (2010).” United Health Foundation.
http://www.americashealthrankings.org/yearcompare/2009/2010/LA.aspx
2 Lewit, Eugene M. and Douglas Coate. “The Potential for Using Excise Taxes to
Reduce Smoking.” Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 1, No. 2 (1982) pp. 12 1-145.
3 Carpenter, Christopher and Philip J. Cook, “Cigarette Taxes and Youth Smok-
ing: new Evidence from National, State and Local Youth
Risk Behavior Surveys.” Journal of Health Economics, Vol. 27(2), March 2008.
4 Overall, the average tax rate in the United States is $1.45 per pack of cigarettes.
In Texas, cigarettes are taxed at $1.41 per pack, in Arkansas at $1.15 per pack, and
in Mississippi at 68 cents per pack.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Taxation and Economic Policy. A 50 cent per pack increase
would generate about $158 million.
As the table above indicates, Louisianans at all income levels
would see an increase in their taxes, but those with lower
incomes would face a larger increase as a share of income.
In other words, cigarette tax increases are regressive.
On the other hand, the health benefits of reducing smoking
are significant, and disproportionately benefit low-income
people, who are more likely to smoke than those with
higher incomes. In addition, it is now somewhat easier for
low-income people to quit smoking than in the past be-
cause, under federal health care reform, Medicaid now cov-
ers counseling and smoking cessation drugs for pregnant
women, and will soon offer incentives for states to expand
tobacco counseling services to those not previously covered
by Medicaid.
Cigarette prices in Louisiana rank 48th in the country.5
Probably not coincidentally, consumption of tobacco in
the state is higher than the national average. Over 675,000
people, or one in five adults in Louisiana, regularly smoke
cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention 2010 Tobacco Control State Highlights.6 In
5 “2010 State Cigarette Excise Taxes.” National Conference of State Legislatures.
Last updated July 1, 2010. http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=14349
6 “State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System.” Centers
Raising Cigarette Taxes 13
2009, more than 364.5 million packs were sold, about 1,623
cigarettes for every man, woman, and child in Louisiana.7
Perhaps most concerning, about one in five high school
teens in Louisiana currently smoke cigarettes and over
half of those teens say they have smoked cigarettes at some
point. Some of these teenagers will develop lifelong addic-
tions, making them less healthy and less productive workers
as adults, weakening the state economy. Since teenagers are
particularly price-sensitive, raising Louisiana’s low cigarette
taxes could save some teens from getting hooked, improv-
ing the economy’s long-term potential.
Increasing cigarette taxes by $1 or 50 cents per pack would
help bridge the FY2012 budget shortfall while fostering
healthier communities in Louisiana. However, policy mak-
ers considering a cigarette tax increase should keep in mind
the following concerns and take steps to mitigate them in
any proposed legislation:
Like all taxes on things we consume, cigarette taxes are re-
gressive, which means that this tax will take a relatively larg-
for Disease Control and Prevention. 2009. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/statesystem/
DetailedReport/DetailedReports.aspx#ReportDetail
7 Data from http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0099.pdf.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that 364.5 million packs of cigarettes
were sold in Louisiana in FY 2009. At 20 cigarettes per pack, that equals 1,623
cigarettes for every person in Louisiana based on the state’s 2010 Census popula-
tion of 4,492,076.
14 Raising Cigarette Taxes
er percentage bite out of poor people’s income than from
the well-to-do. Some states have offset the increased burden
on the poor by using a portion of the additional revenue to
increase the Earned Income Tax Credit or to provide sales
or property tax credits for low-income families.
Revenues from cigarette taxes decline over time as smoking
decreases and therefore cannot support state services that
naturally increase in cost over time. This mismatch between
revenues and costs may upset an already distrustful public
if the money raised from an increase in the cigarette tax is
dedicated to fund ongoing, specific services. So it is impor-
tant to treat an increase in cigarette taxes as one-time or
short-term source of revenue to help dig Louisiana out of its
fiscal hole.
BETTER CHOICES for a BETTER LOUISIANA
Better Choices for a Better Louisiana represents a
growing number of environmental, business, faith-
based, labor, health, education, community, and con-
sumer groups from throughout Louisiana that want
to invest in Louisiana’s future.
1. We need a balanced, transparent approach
to solving Louisiana’s fiscal crisis rather than
relying solely on short-sighted cuts to services
needed by working families. An approach
based solely on cutting education, human ser-
vices, health care, and other vital services risks
serious, long-term damage to the state and its
people.
2. Louisiana’s fiscal crisis is due in part to the
global recession but is also of our own mak-
ing. Tax policies and exemptions have left the
state with insufficient revenues to fund needed
services.
3. Spending money on services for the people of
Louisiana is not the problem. State spending
in the wake of multiple disasters, adjusted for
inflation, has been flat, despite rising demand for
public services such as healthcare, infrastructure,
workforce development, and education.
Louisiana Progress
LBP provides independent, nonpartisan research and
analysis of fiscal issues and their impact on Louisiana
families and businesses. It seeks to bring wider pros-
perity to Louisiana though a deeper understanding of
the state budget, broadening fiscal policy debates, and
increasing public participation in decision-making.
LBP is part of the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative’s 40
state budget projects that are coordinated by the na-
tional Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Tim Mathis, a Louisiana Budget Project analyst, may
be contacted via email at timmathis@lano.org.
4. We can address our fiscal crisis and ensure a
better future for Louisiana by adopting a trans-
parent and balanced approach of RESPONSIBLE
revenue measures, spending measures, and
COMMON SENSE savings. Louisiana needs to
invest in its economic future. We need a better
educated, healthier workforce. That means we
need sufficient revenues (1) to make strategic
public investments in the structures, services, and
natural resources that will attract business invest-
ment and (2) to ensure that our education, human
welfare, and health-care systems can provide
Louisianans the services needed to compete in
today’s labor markets.
5. Revenue measures must be thoughtful, ad-
equate, sustainable, and fair. Louisiana needs a
revenue system that will ensure that the state has
the resources to meet current needs and to invest
in our future. The system should ensure that ALL
individuals and businesses pay their proportion-
ate share. The revenue-raising system needs to
be stable, able to absorb the economic ups and
downs without resorting to tinkering with rates or
making temporary changes.
betterchoicesla.org
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Pathways to Prosperity:
How Louisiana Can Go From Worst to First in
Pulling Its Citizens out of Poverty
Melissa Flournoy
Among the states, Louisiana ranks close to the bottom on
many education, health, and other economic and quality-
of-life indicators. We remain next-to-last in life expectancy,
have the third highest in infant mortality rate, and are near
the top in violent crime. Only four states have a smaller
percentage of citizens with college degrees, and only one
state has a greater proportion of its citizens living below the
poverty line.1 We have read these and other similar statis-
tics so many times that we have become dulled to them. We
are accustomed to being last and have become complacent.
But, thinking about these rankings afresh, we should be out-
raged and demand more of our leaders to ensure a healthier,
brighter, and more robust future for the people of our state.
Our government can show its commitment to improving
many of these indicators by focusing on one issue that links
them all: poverty.
What is Poverty?
This year, the federal poverty line for a family of three is
only $18,530, and for a family of four is merely $22,350.2
But numbers do not come close to revealing the true nature
of poverty. A more descriptive definition of poverty is that
“[a] family is poor if the family cannot provide at the most
basic levels adequate food, housing clothing, health care,
and education for its members.”3 With the high cost of
necessities like food, housing, and child care, many fami-
lies who earn more than the federal poverty limit still are
unable to provide for life’s necessities and thus remain poor.
For this reason, many poverty-alleviation programs provide
benefits to those with incomes of two or two-and-a-half
times the poverty line.4 Even that is considered by many to
be too low a threshold to provide for a person’s needs, and
1 The statistics in this paragraph are derived from the Interactive Maps and Data
page of the American Human Development Project, www.measureofamreica.org.
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secre-
tary for Planning and Evaluation, “The 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines,” http://aspe.
hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml.
3 Child Poverty Prevention Council for LA, “Implementation Plan,” February
2009, p. 12, http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/documents/files/CPPC-Implementa-
tion-Plan-2009.pdf.
4 Child Poverty Prevention Council for LA, Implementation Plan, pp. 12-13.
Pathways to Prosperity 15
many have proposed raising the ceiling for some benefits to
three times the poverty level.5
Louisiana ranks second in the percentage of its citizens liv-
ing in poverty.6 Twenty-four percent of Louisiana’s children
live below the poverty line,7 and nearly half live in fami-
lies who earn less than twice the poverty level.8 The cur-
rent recession will only exacerbate the problem, making it
harder for families to climb out of poverty and pulling more
families in.
The Impact of Poverty
Poverty harms all of society, but the toll is especially great
on children struggling in poverty. Poverty impairs chil-
dren’s emotional, intellectual, and physical development.
Research shows that from a young age, poor children begin
to fall behind their wealthier peers and this achievement
gap only increases as they attend the lower-quality public
schools available in poorer neighborhoods. Hampered
cognitive development and poor educational opportuni-
ties mean that poorer students drop out of school more
frequently and attend college less often than other students.
Thus, they enter adulthood without the education and skills
required to land higher paying jobs, continuing the cycle of
poverty. And it is not only their intellectual development
that suffers. Poor children are less healthy and get sicker
over time. And, fewer opportunities means they are more
likely to turn to crime.9
But, poverty does not impact only the poor. It is expensive
for the rest of society. In a year, poverty costs the United
States $500 billion in lost productivity and increased health
care and criminal justice costs, and each year the country
loses approximately 4% in gross domestic product from
5 Child Poverty Prevention Council for LA, Implementation Plan, p. 13.
6 Maps and Data, American Human Development Project.
7 Kids Count Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/
Rankings.aspx?ind=43.
8 Kids Count Data Center, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/
Rankings.aspx?ind=47.
9 Center for American Progress, “Child Poverty by the Numbers: New Data
Shows Largest Number of People in Poverty on Record,” http://www.american-
progress.org/issues/2010/09/poverty_numbers.html.
16 Pathways to Prosperity
poverty.10 Doing nothing to alleviate poverty not only fails
our most vulnerable citizens, but also costs the state mil-
lions of dollars a year in lost productivity, tax revenue, and
higher health care and criminal justice costs. The ripple
effects of poverty will continue to impact the state's budget
and fiscal health. Louisiana can no longer afford to waste
money keeping its citizens poor.
The Poverty Discussion:
Less Talk and More Action
The federal government is deprioritizing poverty alleviation
initiatives, which is all the more reason that Louisiana’s state
government needs to take a bold step forward to address the
issue. The budget bill originally passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives included deep cuts to programs to assist the
poor. For Louisiana, that budget bill would cut over 5,000
places in Head Start programs for pre-school-age children,11
$83 million in Pell grants for 129,000 low-income col-
lege students, $3 million in adult education programs and
transition programs for youth being released from prison,
$19 million for job training, $41.1 million in education for
disadvantaged students and school improvements for K-12
education, and $28 million in low income housing pro-
grams.12 Regardless whether this budget passes (as of this
writing, the federal government has not approved a budget),
it is evident that going forward, Louisiana will no longer be
able to rely on the continued goodwill of Washington, D.C.,
and instead must prioritize the development and funding of
programs to care for our poorest citizens.
But, there is reason to be optimistic that hard work and
sound policy choices can make a vast difference. Despite
conventional wisdom, poverty is not an intractable prob-
lem. Indeed, the U.S. poverty rate fell by more than 40
percent between 1964 and 1973.13 There is no reason why
we cannot enjoy similar success now in Louisiana. By
rebuilding our economy, creating good jobs, investing in
families, and ensuring economic security, we can replicate
this success, move millions into the middle class, and secure
the state’s economic prosperity.
10 ibid.
11 National Head Start Association, http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_
files/3A78F56B-1D09-3519-ADBC46009D7A7FC2/REVISED_State_cuts_data.
pdf.
12 James Horney, et al., “House Bill Means Fewer Children in Head Start, Less
Help for Students to Attend College, Less Job Training, and Less Funding for
Clean Water,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 18, 2011, Index,
http://www.housingalliancepa.org/var/resourcefile/file/206-CBPP%20House%20
GOP%20Proposal.pdf.
13 Center for American Progress, “From Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strat-
egy to Cut Poverty in Half,” April 2007, p. 7, http://www.americanprogress.org/
issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf.
Louisiana Progress
A Good Beginning: The Child Poverty
Prevention Council for Louisiana
Over the last decade, there has been an increased focus on
the need to address poverty in Louisiana. In 2004, Gover-
nor Kathleen Blanco started the Solutions to Poverty Initia-
tive through the Department of Social Services.14 Unfortu-
nately, the impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita derailed
that state’s efforts to focus on poverty as all resources were
diverted to recovery.
All was not lost, however. The banner was picked up again
in 2008, when several legislators recognized the need to
refocus energy and resources on solutions to poverty and
so created the Child Poverty Prevention Council for Loui-
siana and the Child Poverty Prevention Fund to implement
programs to reduce child poverty in the state by 50% over
the following 10 years.
The Council is made up of private organizations and public
agencies including the state Legislature, state executive
agencies, business and labor groups, higher education insti-
tutions, and nonprofit advocacy groups.15 Experts cautioned
the Council to focus on a short list of priorities rather than
create an exhaustive list of all potential strategies to reduce
child poverty. To that end, the Council established four
priorities:
1. improving birth outcomes
2. becoming a national model for comprehensive,
evidence-based early childhood education
14 “Louisiana Solutions to Poverty: Engaging Ideas Empowering People, Enhanc-
ing Lives—Governor’s Summit on Solutions to Poverty Summary Report and The
First Annual Solutions to Poverty Initiative Roadmap and Action Plan,” May 2005,
pp. 4-5, http://www.dss.state.la.us/assets/docs/searchable/OFS/solutionsToPoverty/
GovernorsSummitSTOPReport.pdf.
15 Child Poverty Prevention Council for Louisiana, “Implementation Plan,” p. 6.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
3. strengthening the connections between
disadvantaged youth and school and work
4. raising the state earned income tax credit16
Unfortunately, it appears that the Council has not been ac-
tive over the past two years. It took an important first step
in articulating a handful of goals to pull Louisiana’s children
out of poverty, but goals are nothing without implementa-
tion. The Council must take a more active role now if it is to
fulfill its mandate to significantly reduce poverty in Loui-
siana by 2018. It should also be sure that the solutions it
develops are comprehensive enough to address the various
causes and aspects of poverty including housing, education,
jobs, access to healthcare, and wealth creation.
The ripple effects of poverty will
continue to impact Louisiana’s
budget and fiscal health.
Taking the Next Steps:
What Else Can Louisiana Do?
In 2007, the Center for American Progress developed a
Strategy to reduce poverty in the United States. It proposed
a dozen policies that, if implemented on a national level,
would cut poverty in half over 10 years.17 However, Louisi-
ana should not wait for action on the federal level. It should
begin to institute some of these policy proposals now.
In doing so, Louisiana can pull more families and more
children out of poverty. Not only is this good for the poor
of our state and for our economy, but also it would put the
state on the leading edge of poverty reduction nationwide;
making us first among the states, rather than last. Specifi-
cally, Louisiana should take steps to:
1. Expand the earned income tax credit
2. Provide child care assistance to all poor families
3. Promote early childhood education, increase access
to Head Start and LA4 programs, and provide pre-
kindergarten for all children
16 Child Poverty Prevention Council for Louisiana, “Implementation Plan,” p. 7.
17 Center for American Progress, Task Force on Poverty, “From Poverty to Pros-
perity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half,” April 2007, pp. 26-58, http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/pdf/poverty_report.pdf.
Pathways to Prosperity 17
4. Ensure affordable higher education and
incentivize college savings plans
5. Create programs for young adults to access job train-
ing and good jobs
6. Assist former prisoners to find stable employment
and reintegrate into society by creating reentry pro-
grams available to all prisoners
7. Coordinate benefits programs and other
services that assist the poor to ensure that
all eligible citizens have access to them and
no one falls through the cracks
8. Incentivize banks to move into underserved com-
munities18
The Center for American Progress, The Leadership Confer-
ence, and the Coalition on Human Needs have developed
the Half In Ten Initiative, seeking to reduce poverty by half
in 10 years.19 The Coalition for Louisiana Progress, along
with other organizations, individuals, and elected officials, is
pledging join in the effort. Louisiana Progress’s Pathways to
Prosperity Initiative is committed to working with elected
officials and communities across Louisiana to pull our state’s
citizens out of poverty and to move Louisiana forward.
Louisiana citizens, nonprofits, and legislators should join
the initiative and commit themselves to advocating for poli-
cies to address this urgent need.
Conclusion
It will take the efforts of citizens, government bodies, non-
governmental organizations, and elected officials to tackle
the crisis of poverty in Louisiana. We all need to work
together to ensure the most prosperous future for our state
and all of its citizens. If we continue with ill-advised bud-
get cuts in higher education, health care, and social services,
we will be unable to meet this goal.
Instead, Louisiana needs to foster policies that will promote
education, health, self-sufficiency, and economic growth.
With the the proper forward-thinking policies in place,
we can achieve a society where citizens can better them-
selves, their children, their families, and their communities
through education, hard work, and the freedom to climb
the ladder of success. Louisiana can and should work to
become first among the states in poverty reduction, hope-
fully a first of many firsts to come.
18 Adapted from Center for American Progress, Task Force on Poverty, “From
Poverty to Prosperity: A National Strategy to Cut Poverty in Half,” pp. 26-58.
19 Half In Ten, “The Campaign to Cut Poverty in Half in Ten Years,” http://half-
inten.org.
2010 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK

Louisiana
OVERALL RANK

49
datacenter.kidscount.org

NATIONAL
KEY INDICATORS STATE TREND NATIONAL TREND RANK

2000 10.3 2000 7.6

Percent low-birthweight babies
7% 8% 49
2007 11.0 2007 8.2

Infant mortality rate 2000 9.0 2000 6.9 -3%

2% 48
(deaths per 1,000 live births) 2007 9.2 2007 6.7

Child death rate 2000 32 -9% 2000 22 -14%

(deaths per 100,000 children ages 1-14) 47
2007 29 2007 19

Teen death rate 2000 85 2000 67

(deaths per 100,000 teens ages 15-19) 11%
-7% 47
2007 94 2007 62

Teen birth rate 2000 62 -8% 2000 48 -10%

(births per 1,000 females ages 15-19) 2007 57 2007 43 44

Percent of teens not in school

2000 11 -9% 2000 11 -45%
and not high school graduates 47
(ages 16-19) 2008 10 2008 6

Percent of teens not attending

2000 N.A. 2000 N.A.
school and not working 45
(ages 16-19) 2008 11 2008 8

Percent of children living in families

2000 N.A. 2000 N.A.
where no parent has full-time, 45
year-round employment
2008 32 2008 27

Percent of children in poverty

2000 27 -7% 2000 17
(income below $21,834 for a family of
2008 25 2008 18 6% 48
two adults and two children in 2008)

Percent of children in 2000 40 2000 31

8% 3% 49
single-parent families 2008 43 2008 32

Find more state and community-level data for
Louisiana at the KIDS COUNT Data Center
datacenter.kidscount.org/LA
PERCENT CHANGE OVER TIME N.A.: Comparable data not available
for 2000 for these indicators. For more
GETTING BETTER
information, and to access the definitions
GETTING WORSE and data sources for all indicators, go to:
datacenter.kidscount.org/databook
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Penny Pound
Wise Foolish
Ryan West
In an effort to overcome part of the state’s $ 1.6 billion
budget shortfall, Governor Jindal has proposed selling three
state prisons—those in Avoyelles, Allen, and Winn parish-
es—to private companies for about $33 million each.1 The
Governor estimates that, in addition to the revenue received
from the sale of the prisons, the State will save $2.8 million
this year and $10.3 million the following year on operating
costs.2 Over the life of the proposed 20-year contracts, the
State estimates that it will save between $7 million and $180
million.3 The GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of
America (CCA) have both responded to Requests for Infor-
mation, each expressing interest in purchasing at least one
of the prisons.4
Lawmakers must think carefully about the long term eco-
nomic and other policy implications at stake. The allure of
$100 million to plug a budget shortfall today may be appeal-
ing, but the convenience of this proposal comes at a cost.
Prison Privatization Is a Poor
Economic Choice
It is not at all clear that selling prisons will result in an eco-
nomic boon for Louisiana. Indeed, the sales are at least as
likely to have the opposite effect, costing the taxpayers more
over time.
1 Michelle Millhollon, “Jindal Ready to Move on Prison Sales,” Baton Rouge Ad-
vocate, February 24, 2011, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/116796293.html.
2 Millohollon, “Jindal Ready to Move on Prison Sales.”
3 Jan Moller, “Workers Protest Plan to Sell State Prisons,” New Orleans Times-
Picayune, March 24, 2011, http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/work-
ers_protest_plan_to_sell_s.html.
4 The GEO Group, Inc., “Request for Information-Purchase of Prison and
Management Services,” February 9, 2011, http://doc.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/
files/misc/GEO.pdf; Corrections Corporationof America, “State of Louisiana
Department of Public Safety and Corrections: Corrections Services Request for
Information (RFI) for Purchase of Prison and Management Services,” February 11,
2011, http://doc.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/files/misc/CCA.pdf.
Prisons for Sale 19
Prisons
for Sale
Sale or Loan?
Selling the prisons to private companies will not relieve the
State of the cost of operating them as it will continue to bear
the cost of caring for the inmates.5 Currently, the state pays
$31.51 per day to house and care for each inmate.6 Once
the prisons are sold, the state would retain responsibility for
paying the private companies to provide that care.7 More-
over, the per diem rates will be increased so that the com-
panies can recoup the price paid for the prisons, which will
result in the state paying back the $33 million (per prison)
purchase price over the 20-year term of the contracts.8 Es-
sentially, the sale of each prison is no more than a loan of
$33 million from the private companies that the state will
repay over time, thus pushing our financial obligations to
the next generation.
Cost Containment or Increased Spending?
Private prisons have proliferated mostly under the argu-
ment of cost containment. Advocates for privatization
maintain that private sector management and operation of
prisons can cut costs by up to 20 percent and thus save the
state money.9 Central to the argument in favor of priva-
tization is the perceived inefficiency of labor costs in the
5 Millohollon, “Jindal Ready to Move on Prison Sales.”
6 Times-Picayune Staff, “Louisiana Draws Some Interest for Sale of Prisons,”
New Orleans Times-Picayune, February 20, 2011, http://www.nola.com/politics/
index.ssf/2011/02/louisiana_draws_some_interest.html.
7 Millhollon, “La. Explores Prison Sale,” Baton Rouge Advocate, February 10,
2011, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/La-explores-prison-sale.html
8 The GEO Group, Inc., “Request for Information-Purchase of Prison and
Management Services,” p. 2; Corrections Corporation of America, “State of Loui-
siana Department of Public Safety and Corrections: Corrections Services Request
for Information (RFI) for Purchase of Prison and Management Services,” p. 9;
Times-Picayune Staff, “Louisiana Draws Some Interest for Sale of Prisons”; Moller,
“Workers Protest Plan to Sell State Prisons.”
9 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice As-
sistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” February 2001, p. iii, 16, http://
www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf. These views are represented in Public
Safety and Corrections Secretary Jimmy Leblanc’s justifications for selling the
prisons. See Moller, “Workers Protest Plan to Sell State Prisons.”
20 Prisons for Sale
operation of prisons. In employing mostly nonunion work-
ers and by controlling wages and fringe benefits, private
prison companies maintain that they can efficiently reduce
the costs of labor and thereby net substantial savings for the
government.10
The promise of meaningful savings, however, is specious
at best. There is little evidence that privatization of prisons
results in significant public savings. In a General Account-
ing Office review of several comparative studies on pri-
vate versus public prisons, researchers acknowledged that
“because the studies reported little difference and/or mixed
results in comparing private and public facilities, we could
not conclude whether privatization saved money.”11 The U.S.
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance arrived
at similar conclusions, reporting that “rather than the pro-
jected 20-percent savings, the average saving from privatiza-
tion was only 1 percent” and “the promises of 20- percent
savings in operational costs have simply not materialized.”12
Moreover, indirect costs to privatization must be factored
into the analysis. The contracts between states and prison
companies are complex and require careful monitoring
to ensure that the terms are being complied with and to
enforce them where necessary. This adds a layer of gov-
ernment bureaucracy that must be paid for by taxpayers.
Administrative costs in negotiating and monitoring the
contracts can cost the state between 10 and 20 percent of
the contract price, easily offsetting any cost savings that
might otherwise accrue.13
Privatization is likely to cause an uptick in litigation by
inmates contesting the conditions of their confinement.14
Private prisons, unlike state governments, have no immu-
nity from suit which means that regardless whether there
is an increase in lawsuits, costs of litigation are likely to
increase.15 Depending on how the contracts are structured,
whether any indemnification provisions would be enforce-
able, and how much pressure the prison companies place
on the state, Louisiana could be on the hook for litigation
10 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” p. 16.
11 U.S. General Accounting Office, “Report to the Subcommittee on Crime,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives: Private and Public Prisons:
Studies Comparing Operational Costs and/or Quality of Service,” GAO/GGD-96-
158, August 1996, p. 7, http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/gg96158.pdf.
12 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” pp. iii,
59.
13 American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, “The Record—
For-Profit Private Prisons Do Not Provide Measurable Cost Savings,” http://
ww.afscme.org/publications/2556.cfm; Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging
Issues on Privatized Prisons,” p. 16.
14 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” pp. xi,
16.
15 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” pp. xi,
16, 71.
Louisiana Progress
expenses.16
Finally, it is unlikely that the state would be absolved of
all duties to maintain control of the prison and ensure the
well-being of the inmates. If, for instance, there were to be
a riot in a privately owned prison or if the prison were to be
affected by a natural disaster, it is likely that the state would
be called in to assist the prison employees, all at additional
cost to Louisiana taxpayers.
Selling off assets and using one-
time funds to pay for recurring
expenses is an unsound and
irresponsible budget strategy.
Necessity to Save Health Care Programs or
Procrastination Technique?
The Jindal administration has reasoned that the prisons
must be sold in order to defer cuts to health care programs
for the poor. Part of the administration’s proposed $24.9
billion state operating budget requires using $86 million
from the prison sales to fund the state’s Medicaid program.17
This rationale is fundamentally flawed because it does not
solve the problem of funding these programs, which require
yearly expenditures. It merely postpones finding a real
solution, temporarily patching the problem using one-time
funds. Selling off assets and using those one-time funds to
pay for recurring expenses is an unsound and irresponsible
budgeting strategy. Because the state will eventually refund
the purchase price through increased per diem payments to
the companies, it is not even saving the $86 million; rather,
it is just putting off paying the bill.
Economic Boon to the State or Devastation
to Local Economies?
Because private prisons will have an incentive to keep costs
low, there will be a drive to eliminate jobs and reduce the
16 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” pp. 19-
20; American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, “The Record—
For-Profit Private Prisons Do Not Provide Measurable Cost Savings.”
17 Michelle Millhollon, “Jindal Aide: Sell Prison or Health Services Get Cut,”
Baton Rouge Advocate, March 20, 2011, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/
Jindal-Aide-Sell-prisons-or-health-services-get-cut.html.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
already low wages and benefits of prison workers. The
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections es-
timates that 918 jobs would be eliminated if the prisons are
sold.18 Reduced pay and a vast reduction in benefits of those
who remain employed are sure to follow.19 The prisons up
for sale are located in poorer rural parishes without much
other economic activity. The economies of these commu-
nities rely heavily on the prisons and there are few other
employment options for many of their employees.20 Layoffs
and reductions in wages would be significant, not only for
the workers, but also for the economies of these commu-
nities, which rely heavily on dollars spent by prison em-
ployees. At the same time, these private companies would
be collecting their profits and sending Louisiana taxpayer
dollars out of state to shareholders. Louisiana should show
a commitment to ensuring a high quality of life for its work-
ers, encouraging strong local economies, and keeping tax
revenues in the state. Prison privatization subverts these
values.
Privately Run Prisons Harm the
Justice System
While the privatization of prisons is unlikely to provide the
economic windfall that the Governor suggests, it will have
an adverse effect on Louisiana’s criminal justice system. The
profit motives of private companies are incongruent with
the goals of deterring crime and rehabilitating inmates so
that they can be productive members of society when they
leave prison.
Remember Jena?
Because of the drive to keep costs low, private companies
that run prisons are inclined to cut corners to sometimes
devastating effect. Louisiana officials should be well aware
of this harmful side of privatization from the debacle of the
Jena Juvenile Justice facility. In 2000, the U.S. Department
of Justice and a juvenile court judge found that the Wacken-
hut Correctional Corporation, which operated the facility,
severely abused the boys housed there, kept them in solitary
confinement for months at a stretch, and refused to provide
them with basic necessities like shoes, blankets, underwear,
education, and medical care.21 The juvenile court judge—a
18 Jan Moller, “Workers Protest Plan to Sell State Prisons.”
19 Bureau of Justice Assistance, “Emerging Issues on Privatized Prisons,” p. 16;
Fox Butterfield, “Justice Dept. Report Shows Trouble in Private U.S. Jails Preceded
Job Fixing Iraq’s,” New York Times, June 6, 2004, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
fullpage.html?res=9E00E5DA1131F935A35755C0A9629C8B63&scp=3&sq=Wack
enhut%20geo&st=cse&pagewanted=1.
20 Jan Moller, “Workers Protest Plan to Sell State Prisons.”
21 Fox Butterfield, “Privately Run Juvenile Prison in Louisiana Is Attacked for
Abuse of 6 Inmates,” New York Times, March 16, 2000, http://query.nytimes.com/
Prisons for Sale 21
Outside the Jena Juvenile Justice Center
former prosecutor—remarked that the facility “drives and
treats juveniles as if they walked on all fours.”22
The Department of Justice and a federal judge attributed
many of the abuses to Wackenhut's efforts to keep costs
as low as possible, finding that the company cut corners
in providing food, clothing, education, and medical treat-
ment for the boys and skimped on training for the guards.23
Experts concluded that the poor treatment of the boys
“‘seemed to be linked to the reluctance of Wackenhut Cor-
rections to spend adequate funds to provide for the care
of the youth,’” and a former warden at the Angola prison
characterized Wackenhut’s actions as “‘just cheap.’”24
Wackenhut has changed its name to GEO Group and is one
of the companies interested in purchasing at least one of
the prisons that would be up for sale if the Governor goes
forward with his plan.25
Simply put, in selling off prisons to private companies,
the three Cs of the corrections system—custody, care, and
control—all suffer. There is not enough staff to ensure that
the prisoners are safe and receive adequate food, clothing,
medical care, programming, and other necessities. More-
over, there is a real danger that in cutting costs, the private
companies will not provide sufficient training to the guards
to give them the skills necessary to control the inmates
and provide them with proper care. And, it should not be
forgotten that in April 2000, the state of Louisiana took
gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04EEDD163AF935A25750C0A9669C8B63&pagewant
ed=1.
22 Butterfield, “Privately Run Juvenile Prison in Louisiana Is Attacked for Abuse
of 6 Inmates.”
23 Butterfield, “Privately Run Juvenile Prison in Louisiana Is Attacked for Abuse
of 6 Inmates.”
24 Butterfield, “Privately Run Juvenile Prison in Louisiana Is Attacked for Abuse
of 6 Inmates.”
25 Butterfield, “Justice Dept. Report Shows Trouble in Private U.S. Jails Preceded
Job Fixing Iraq’s.”
22 Prisons for Sale
over control of the Jena facility from Wackenhut.26 When
the state is compelled to retake responsibility for a prison,
the cost to the taxpayers greatly increases, likely wiping
away any savings from privatization. As Jena proved, a state
takeover is a real possibility that must be accounted for, not
merely a hypothetical, worst-case scenario.
Invitation to Make Bad Criminal Justice Policy?
Prison privatization has serious implications for the pur-
suit of rational sentencing policies and sentencing reform.
Private prison companies are beholden to the bottom line
and maximization of profits. Because the state pays private
prisons per diems based on the number of inmates they
house, higher profits require more inmates and longer sen-
tences. Thus, these companies are incentivized to advocate
for policies that result in the imprisonment of more citizens
for longer periods of time. In its SEC filings, CCA has even
acknowledged that “crime rates and sentencing patterns in
the United States” impact its “potential for growth.”27
Moreover, private prisons have little incentive to implement
successful rehabilitation programs including substance
abuse treatment, vocational skills training, and education.
The profit motive of private prison companies inherently
creates a problematic entanglement between interest in
profit and public policy.
Though private prison companies deny that they are moti-
vated to take proactive steps in pursuing legislation to keep
their facilities filled, both CCA and GEO Group are major
contributors to the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC), a public policy organization which has developed
and helped to successfully implement in many states “tough
on crime” initiatives including “truth in sentencing” and
“three strikes” laws. CCA’s Director of Business Develop-
ment sits on ALEC’s Public Safety and Elections Task Force,
whose mandate is in part to “approve[] model bills that hold
criminals accountable for their actions and that provide
swift and certain punishment for their crimes.”28 By fund-
ing ALEC and participating in the organization’s task forces,
private prison companies seek to directly influence legisla-
tion related to sentencing; in this case, harsh sentencing
laws sending more people to prison for longer sentences.
Louisiana already has the highest incarceration rate of any
26 Fox Butterfield, “Company to Stop Operating Troubled Prison ,” New York
Times, April 27, 2000, http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40714F73
A540C748EDDAD0894D8404482&scp=8&sq=Wackenhut%20jena&st=cse.
27 Securities & Exchange Commission, “Corrections Corporation of America
10-k,” March 31, 1997.
28 American Legislative Exchange Council, http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.
cfm?Section=Private_Sector_Executive_Committee2.
Louisiana Progress
When the state is compelled to
retake responsibility for a
prison, the cost to taxpayers
greatly increases.
state in the nation, and studies suggest that incarcerating
inmates for longer periods of time does not deter crime
and thus does make law abiding citizens safer.29 Inmates
released after long sentences have difficulty getting jobs
and assimilating back into society. This is especially true of
inmates who do not have access to quality, impactful reha-
bilitation and educational programs in prison. Opening the
door for profit-driven corporations to influence delicate and
nuanced decisions about criminal justice will result in poli-
cies that are detrimental to the people of Louisiana.
Conclusion—Is It Worth It?
Given the extent of the state’s budget shortfall, it can be
tempting for policymakers to set their sights on $100 mil-
lion of seemingly easy money. However, they must look
beyond the price tag to the true cost of prison privatization
and take into account the impact both on Louisiana’s budget
over the long term and the economies of the parishes where
the prisons are located. Moreover, they should take serious-
ly the impact that prison privatization will have on sentenc-
ing policy and consider the state’s duty to those it incarcer-
ates in ensuring that the prisoners receive basic necessities
and adequate care.
Ryan West is a 2008 graduate of LSU with a major in
Sociology and a concentration in Criminology. Ryan
is currently the Communications Director for
Louisiana Progress.
29 Tim Morris, “Louisiana’s Incarceration Rate Is No. 1 in Nation,” New Orleans
Times Picayune, March 2, 2009,
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/03/louisianas_incarceration_rate.html;
David Anderson, “The Deterrence Hypothesis and Picking Pockets at the Pick-
pocket’s Hanging,” 4 AM. L. & ECON. REV. 295, 302-04 (2002); John M. Darley,”
On the Unlikely Prospect of Reducing Crime Rates by Increasing the Severity of
Prison Sentences,” 1 3 J.L. & POL’Y 189, 193-202 (2005).
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Equity, Inclusion and Equality
SarahJane E. Brady
Everywhere you look, Louisiana is trying to position
itself as an emerging center for technology and creativ-
ity. Recently Governor Jindal announced that he will
work in the upcoming legislative session to extend the
Quality Jobs Program, the Research and Development
Tax Credit and the Technology Commercialization
Credit/Jobs Program, in addition to making enhance-
ments to the Digital Interactive Media Production Tax
Credit to keep the state competitive in attracting busi-
ness investment and spurring job creation.1 The Baton
Rouge Chamber of Commerce recently announced
that Baton Rouge will be the Creative Capital of the
South. New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu is touting
New Orleans as creative community that encourages
and promotes diversity and innovation.
However, in order for Louisiana to stand a chance in the
creative and technology spheres, we must first focus on
diversity. According to economist Richard Florida, “People
in technology businesses are drawn to places known for
diversity of thought and open mindedness.” Also, Florida
concludes that leading indicators for an area’s high-technol-
ogy successes include a large gay population, high concen-
trations of foreign-born residents, high concentration of
artists, and an overall tolerance for diversity.2
Unfortunately, Baton Rouge and most of Louisiana have
not yet earned the reputation for openness, tolerance and
diversity. For example, the East Baton Rouge Parish Metro
Council backed down from supporting the One Baton
Rouge Resolution, which would have expressed tolerance of
the city’s gay population, when faced with the opposition of
1 Office of the Governor Bobby Jindal, “Governor Jindal Announces Legislation
for Extensions and Enhancements of Critical Business Incentives,” Feb. 16, 2011,
http://gov.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=newsroom&tmp=detail&catID=2&article
ID=2707
2 Richard Florida & Gary Gates, “Technology and Tolerance: The Importance
of Diversity to High-Technology Growth,” Research in Urban Policy, Vol, 9, p. 200
(2003), http://www.davidlubin.com/Culture%20and%20Politics%20Documents/
clark.city.ch7.PDF.
Equity, Inclusion & Equality 23
the Louisiana Family Forum and a small group of ministers
who purchased a full page advertisement in the Baton Rouge
Advocate newspaper the day the resolution was to be voted
on by the Metro Council.3 There is a significant need for lo-
cal leadership and political courage to embrace all of Louisi-
ana’s citizens, to end discrimination, and to make Louisiana
a welcoming place for high technology businesses.
We need to be real and appreciate the fact that just about
everybody in Louisiana knows someone who is gay. In a re-
cent survey, 77% of Americans report having a gay friend or
family member.4 It can be difficult to understand the legal
inequities that gay and transgender citizens face because of
a lack in employment, housing, services, and parenting legal
protections, and what harm these disparities can cause the
people closest to us. But we must understand and address
these problems if Louisiana is to succeed.
Opportunity to Move Forward and
Embrace Diversity
The Louisiana Legislature has the opportunity to move for-
ward in recognizing the interests of all citizens of the state,
making it a more hospitable place to work and raise a fam-
ily. In Louisiana the leading voice for the need for tolerance
and diversity is The Forum For Equality. The Forum For
Equality is a statewide human rights organization dedicated
to the establishment of a society free from discrimination
and to the support of good government. The Forum For
Equality believes that the fastest and most efficient way to
achieve these goals is to educate our communities and to
constructively participate in the political process. In each
region of the state, there are community based organiza-
tions promoting equity, inclusion and equality for the LGBT
Community.5
3 Greg Garland, “One Baton Rouge Resolution Pulled From Agenda,” Baton
Rouge Advocate, June 28, 2010, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99499484.
html. The advertisement paid for by the Louisiana Family Forum Action is avail-
able at http://lafamilyforum.us/docs/10-LFF-0017.pdf.
4 Brian Montopoli, “Poll: With Higher Visibility, Less Disapproval for Gays,”
CBSNews, June 9, 2010, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007144-
503544.html.
5 http://www.forumforequality.com/.
24 Equity, Inclusion & Equality
Is it a Choice or Genetic?
A solid body of evidence shows that people don’t
choose to be straight or gay. The best evidence right
now is that genetics plays a significant role in sexual
orientation, and in this respect, it is similar to many
traits affecting a minority of the population. There is
also evidence that hormonal influences in the mother’s
womb affect the sexual orientation of a child.
Science has firmly established the innate nature of
the trait for homosexuality. The preponderance of
evidence establishes that biology, not choice, drives
sexual orientation—both gay and straight. Despite the
attempts of a tiny minority of therapists and pseudo-
therapists to “change” a person’s sexual orientation,
Chandler Burr, A Separate Creation: The Search for the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation, 1996.
Strengthening Louisiana
The Forum For Equality has identified three bills that have
been introduced in the 2011 Legislative Session which
would strengthen Louisiana’s families and improve Loui-
siana’s reputation for diversity by allowing legally recog-
nized second parent adoption, making schools safer by
implementing anti-bullying policies, and ending workplace
discrimination in state government agencies.
Strengthening Families:
HB288 Rep. Helena Moreno
In Louisiana, the “best interest of the child” is the standard
used in all custody and adoption cases. The fitness of the
prospective parent is determined in an exhaustive process
involving social workers, the district attorney’s office, and
the judge handling the adoption case. This process safe-
guards the child’s welfare.
Louisiana currently permits married couples to adopt a
child together and a single adult to adopt a child individu-
ally. Louisiana law does not permit a child to be adopted by
an unmarried couple, no matter how long they have lived
together. Under Louisiana law, a gay person can adopt a
child, but two gay people cannot adopt a child together.
(LA Children’s Code Art. 1198, 1221)
This is a policy that is inconsistent with protecting the best
Louisiana Progress
they have not been successful. This minority attempts
to repress outward behavior and claim this repression
is evidence of a change in actual orientation. Countless
national and international medical and scientific orga-
nizations are on record opposing this false and harmful
“therapy.”
The closest analogy is handedness. Right-handedness is
the majority orientation, left-handedness, the minority.
The rate of left-handedness is 8% of all people, and left-
handedness is an un-chosen, immutable, internal, in-
stinctive orientation; you can force left-handed people
to write with their right hands as was regularly done up
through the 1950s in Catholic schools where left-hand-
edness was believed to be evil and a moral failing, but
that's just behavior masking the true orientation.
interest of the child above all else because it contravenes
the generally accepted norm that a second parent benefits a
child’s welfare. This concept is true for children of unmar-
ried couples and gay couples. Allowing a committed but
unmarried couple to adopt a child together is commonly
known as second parent adoption.
From the child’s perspective, having two adoptive parents is
desirable. The very fact of having two parents enhances the
legal, financial, medical, and emotional security of a child.
Without second parent adoption, the child may not be
covered on an insurance policy of the non-adopting parent.
Further, a child is a legal stranger to the non-adopting par-
ent, even in a case where the adopting parent dies.
Louisiana should embrace and promote second parent
adoption as a way of strengthening all families. HB 288,
sponsored by Rep. Moreno, would permit second parent
adoption, increasing the number of children raised in two-
parent households to the benefit of Louisiana’s children.6
Safe Schools for All Students:
HB112 Rep. Austin Badon
The Forum For Equality believes that our youth are the
most important part of our future. It is essential to support
and protect them from the harmful effects of physical, emo-
6 LA HB 288 (2011), http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.
asp?did=740337.
Inform, Engage, Mobilize Equity, Inclusion & Equality 25

Statements by Professional Associations on Adoption and Second Parent Adoption

“Children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional,
cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”
American Academy of Pediatrics: Policy Statement and Technical Report: Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by
Same-Sex Parents (2002; policy reaffirmed 2010), http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;109/2/341

“The American Bar Association supports the enactment of laws and implementation of pub-
lic policy that provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adop-
tion is determined to be in the best interest of the child.”
American Bar Association: Statements (1995, 1999, 2003), http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/
foster_care_and_adoption.html

“The American Medical Association will support legislative and other efforts to allow the
adoption of a child by the same-sex partner, or opposite-sex non-married partner, who
functions as a second parent or co-parent to that child.”
American Medical Association: Position Statement H-60.940, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/about-ama/
our-people/member-groups-sections/glbt-advisory-committee/ama-policy-regarding-sexual-orientation.page

“Legislation legitimizing second-parent adoptions in same-sex households should be sup-

ported. Legislation seeking to restrict foster care and adoption by gay, lesbian, bisexual or
transgender people should be vigorously opposed.”
National Association of Social Workers: Policy Statement (2002), http://eqfl.org/fairadoption/info/research.html

“All prospective foster and adoptive parents, regardless of sexual orientation, should be given
fair and equal consideration. Children should not be denied a permanent family because of
the sexual orientation of potential parents.”
North American Council on Adoptable Children: NACAC Position Statements: Gay and Lesbian Adoption and
Foster Care (2005, 2006, 2007), http://www.nacac.org/policy/positions.html#topics

“The American Academy of Family Physicians new adoption policy calls for a safe and nur-
turing environment for all children, regardless of the parents’ sexual orientation. Children
are America’s most precious resource. By adopting this policy, the Academy reaffirms its
commitment to a safe and nurturing environment for children.”
American Academy of Family Physicians: Policy on Advocacy for Children and Adoption Policy (2002),
http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/media/releases/2002/childrens-advocacy-policy-oct-16-2002.html
26 Equity, Inclusion & Equality
tional and verbal bullying. Regrettably, Louisiana law does
not detail a standard anti-bullying policy that schools must
adopt. This process is currently left to the individual schools
or school boards. The lack of compulsory policies allows
students to be victimized and targeted unfairly within our
school systems. School should be a safe and welcoming
environment where Louisiana’s youth grow academically,
emotionally and physically, yet bullying is all too common
and sadly ignored. The current policy weakens our students’
ability to learn and thrive in a competitive, technologically
advancing society.
The Forum For Equality wants to protect the well-being of
all students in Louisiana by changing the current anti-bully-
ing laws to enumerate and detail a policy that encompasses
an expectation for safe schools for all children in Louisiana.
What is bullying?
Bullying is aggressive behavior that is intentional and that
involves an imbalance of power or strength. Typically, it is
repeated over time. A child who is being bullied has a hard
time defending himself or herself. Bullying can take many
forms, such as hitting or punching (physical bullying); teas-
ing or name-calling (verbal bullying); intimidation using
gestures or social exclusion (nonverbal bullying or emo-
tional bullying); and sending insulting messages by e-mail,
text or social media (cyber-bullying).
Studies show that between 15–25 percent of U.S. students
are bullied with some frequency (“sometimes or more
often”) while 15–20 percent report that they bully others
with some frequency.7 Children and youth who are bullied
are more likely than other children to be depressed, lonely,
anxious, have low self-esteem, feel unwell, and think about
suicide.8 Suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death for ado-
lescents in Louisiana and in 1999, 51 Louisiana adolescents
ended their lives tragically by completing suicide and 1,253
attempted suicide.9
Bullying also has an impact on other students at school
who are bystanders to bullying.10 Bullying creates a climate
7 G.B. Melton, et al., “Violence Among Rural Youth.” Final Report to the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1998).
8 N. Mullin-Rindler, “Findings from the Massachusetts Bullying Prevention
Initiative,” (2003);
Department of Health and Human Services – Health Resources and Services
Administration –
“Stop Bullying Now! Effects of Bullying,” http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/
topics/effects/index.html.
9 About the LA Youth Suicide Prevention Task Force, http://www.sprc.org/
stateinformation/PDF/stateplans/plan_la.pdf.
10 R. Banks, “Bullying in Schools,” ERIC Report No. EDO-PS-97-170, Univer-
Louisiana Progress
MORE THAN HALF OF THE COUNTRY
ALLOWS SECOND PARENT ADOPTION
Second parent adoptions by gay couples are al-
lowed in 10 States and the District of Columbia:
Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York,
Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Colorado,
and California, representing more than half of the
population of the United States. An additional 15
states allow gay couples to adopt in some counties
of the state.
Center for Lesbian Rights, “Legal Recognition of LGBT Families,” 2010,
http://www.nclrights.org/site/DocServer/Legal_Recognition_of_LGBT_
Families_04_2008.pdf?docID=2861.
of fear and disrespect in schools and has a negative impact
on student learning. Research shows that bullying can be a
sign of other serious antisocial or violent behavior. Children
and youth who frequently bully their peers are more likely
than others to get into frequent fights, be injured in a fight,
vandalize or steal property, drink alcohol, smoke, be truant
from school, drop out of school, and carry a weapon.11
Not only is bullying prevalent, but children and youth
report being extremely concerned about it. In a 2003 Harris
poll of 8-17 year-old girls, commissioned by the Girl Scouts
of the USA, bullying topped girls’ list of concerns regarding
their safety. When asked what they worried about the most,
the most common response was being socially ostracized-
being teased or made fun of.12
Research on the health-related effects of bullying indicates
that victims of frequent bullying are more likely to experi-
ence a variety of health problems, including headaches,
sleeping problems, and stomach ailments. Bullying is a form
of victimization or abuse, and it is wrong. Children should
be able to attend school or take part in community activi-
ties without fear of being harassed, assaulted, belittled, or
excluded.
sity of Illinois Champaign, Ill. (1997), http://wch.uhs.wisc.edu/docs/PDF-Pubs/
bullying-fact-sheet-WCH.pdf.
11 Tonja Nansel, et al., “Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth,” Journal of the
American Medical Association, 285, 2094-2100 (April 25, 2001), http://jama.
ama-assn.org/content/285/16/2094.full.pdf+html?sid=0836b468-460b-421b-98f0-
0de05e2a5339.
12 Judy Schoenberg, et al., “Feeling Safe: What Girls Say,” A Report from the Girl
Scout Research Institute, Girl Scouts of the USA, 2003, executive summary avail-
able at http://www.girlscouts.org/research/pdf/feeling_safe.pdf.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN) regularly surveys lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender youth across the country about their experiences
in school. Key Findings of GLSEN’s 2009 National School
Climate Survey include:13
• 84.6% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
(LGBT) students reported being verbally harassed,
40.1% reported being physically harassed and 18.8%
reported being physically assaulted at school in the
past year because of their sexual orientation.
• Victims of this conduct reported increased levels of
depression and anxiety and decreased levels of self-
esteem.
• Almost all transgender students had been verbally ha-
rassed in the past year at school because of their sexual
orientation (89%) and their gender expression (87%).
• Many students would rather miss school than face
a hostile learning environment. Students were more
than 3 times likelier to have missed classes (29.1% vs.
8.0%) and more than 4 times likelier to have missed
at least one day of school (30.0% vs. 6.7%) in the past
month because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable,
when compared to the general population of second-
ary school students.
• Also, the victimization of these students leads to low
aspirations and academic achievement. Students who
experienced high levels of in-school victimization be-
cause of their sexual orientation or gender expression
were more likely than other students to report that
they did not plan to pursue any post-secondary educa-
tion (college, vocational-technical or trade school):
about 14% of students who experienced high levels of
victimization because of their gender expression or
their sexual orientation did not plan to continue their
education, compared to about 9% of those who had
experienced low levels of victimization.
• Students in schools with comprehensive policies were
more likely than students in schools with a generic
policy or no policy to report that staff intervened
when homophobic remarks (26.6% vs. 15.9% vs.
10.0%) or negative remarks about gender expres-
13 Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network, “The 2009 National School Climate
Survey,” executive summary available at http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/
GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1676-2.PDF, full survey results available at
http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1675-1.
pdf
Equity, Inclusion & Equality 27
sion (17.3% vs. 13.3% vs. 8.9%) were made. However,
only 18.2% of all LGBT students in the GLSEN study
reported that their school had a comprehensive policy
that specifically mentioned sexual orientation, gender
identity, and/or gender expression.
HB 112, introduced by Rep. Badon, would require schools
to enact policies prohibiting harassment, intimidation, and
bullying. The bill provides a comprehensive definition of
bullying and makes clear that it includes conduct motivated
by characteristics including sexual orientation, gender, gen-
der identity or expression, or physical characteristics.14 This
legislation is necessary to ensure that our children are able
to learn in a safe, supportive environment and can develop
to their full potential.
Strengthening Our Workplace:
SB 211 Sen. J. P. Morrell
Employment in Louisiana is at-will, meaning an employer
can hire and fire an employee for any reason not protected
by federal and state laws. (La. C.C. Art. 2747). Currently,
federal and state laws do not prohibit firing employees on
the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Anti-LGBT discrimination results in increased economic
hardship for all Louisianans and their families, particularly
in tough economic times like these.
Twenty-one states plus the District of Columbia prohibit
public and private employers from discriminating on the
basis of sexual orientation: California, Colorado, Connecti-
cut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.15
In addition, several other states have laws prohibiting sexual
orientation discrimination in public workplaces only.16
However, only a few places in this state including Shreve-
port and New Orleans have passed local inclusive nondis-
crimination policies. In general, though, there is very little
recourse for the vast majority of LGBT citizens who are
unfairly denied employment or lose their jobs because of
discrimination. All residents should be treated fairly and
equally by the laws of our state.
14 Louisiana HB 112 (2011), http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocu-
ment.asp?did=737541.
15 Human Rights Campaign, “Statewide Employment Laws and Policies,”
updated March 8, 2011, http://www.hrc.org/documents/Employment_Laws_and_
Policies.pdf.
16 Human Rights Campaign, “Statewide Employment Laws and Policies.”
28 Equity, Inclusion & Equality Louisiana Progress

Sexual Orientation
Fortune 20 Fortune 100 Fortune 500 Fortune 1000 AmLaw 200

2009 Interim 19 (95%) 97 (97%) 434 (87%) 702 (70%) 157 (79%)

2008 Total 19 (95%) 97 (97%) 423 (85%) 689 (69%) 150 (75%)

2003 Total -- 96 (96%) 360 (72%) -- --

Gender Identity
Fortune 20 Fortune 100 Fortune 500 Fortune 1000 AmLaw 200

2009 Interim 12 (60%) 69 (69%) 207 (41%) 254 (25%) 112 (56%)

2008 Total 11 (55%) 60 (60%) 175 (35%) 214 (21%) 89 (45%)

2003 Total -- 11 (11%) 26 (5%) -- --

“Fortune-Ranked Companies Stack Up on LGBT Workplace Policies,” Human Rights Campaign, 2009

Nondiscrimination is a best practice in Corporate America.
The vast majority of the Fortune 100 has nondiscrimination
policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity,
as do many of the Fortune 500.17 Those companies know
that with a diverse workforce, they have access to a larger
pool of candidates and have improved their odds of hir-
ing the best people. Nondiscrimination policies increase
productivity and company loyalty and lower turnover
rates to reduce recruiting and training costs. Companies
have adopted these workplace non-discrimination poli-
cies because they are motivated by the bottom line: hiring
and retaining the best, most experienced person for the job
makes good business sense; employees who do not have to
fear discrimination are loyal and productive; and searching
for and training replacement employees is expensive.
SB 211, introduced by Sen. Morrell, would bring Louisiana
one step closer to preserving diversity in the workforce and
ensuring that Louisiana hires the best and the brightest. It
would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orien-
tation and gender identity and expression in state employ-
ment.18 Although it would not extend to private companies,
it represents movement in the right direction toward a more
inclusive and productive Louisiana. All hard-working peo-
ple in our state should have the chance to earn a living and
provide for themselves and their families. Nobody should
17 Human Rights Campaign, “Workplace Discrimination: Policies, Laws, and
Legislation,” http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/equal_opportunity/about_
equal_opportunity.asp.
18 Louisiana SB 211 (2011), http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.
asp?did=742239.
have to live in fear that they can be legally fired for reasons
that have nothing to do with job performance.
In Conclusion: Louisiana Needs to
Recognize the Value of All Citizens
Diversity and creativity work to the benefit of the commu-
nity and establish a foundation on which a state can grow
and develop economically, culturally and socially. Having
an awareness of differences and respecting them will bring a
new found resilience to Louisiana. If Louisiana is to attract
successful companies to do business here, especially those
in the emerging technology and creative industries, encour-
age out-of-state talent to relocate here, and retain the best
and brightest Louisianans, the state must embrace diversity.
It can show its commitment to these goals by passing mea-
sures that permit second parent adoption, require schools to
enact anti-bullying policies, and prohibit discrimination on
the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
SarahJane E. Brady is the Managing Director of the
Forum for Equality, a statewide human rights orga-
nization dedicated to the establishment of a society
free from discrimination and to the support of good
government. The Forum believes the fastest and most
efficient way to acheive these goals is to educate our
communities and to constructively participate in the
political process.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Roofs and Rain:
Education Facilities Matter
Scott S. Cowen Institute for Public Education
Initiatives at Tulane University
Right now, seemingly more than ever, people are talking
about ways to close the “achievement gap” in America’s
public schools. The top political leaders, researchers, teach-
ers, parents, and business leaders in our country agree that
the economic and intellectual future of our nation depends
on the academic success of all students—rich or poor, black,
white or brown. Many different individuals and groups are
advocating various methods of educational reform to close
the achievement gap, focusing on topics such as teacher
quality, school leadership, charter schools, and more.
However, these groups have paid relatively little attention to
the subject of “school facilities.” While nationwide everyone
agrees that schoolchildren need adequate school buildings
in order to learn, the quality of school facilities is not rec-
ognized as a nationwide problem. Most state governments
make it a priority to provide each of its schoolchildren with
a safe, warm, and dry learning environment, implement-
ing procedures and funding structures to ensure that each
of its school districts—urban or rural, small or big, rich or
poor—are able to construct and maintain school buildings
that allow children to learn and succeed. Louisiana is not
one of these states.
At the state level, Louisiana is one of only nine states that
provide no support for local school districts in the area of
school facilities. In Louisiana, local school districts are
made to shoulder the entire burden of funding, financ-
ing, and planning the construction and renovation of
school buildings. Quite predictably, this system results in
unhealthy, dangerous conditions in schools in areas with
a small or poor populations that are unable to generate
adequate tax revenue—areas like Avoyelles Parish.
Roofs and Rain 29
Avoyelles High School, in rural Avoyelles Parish, was built
in 1926. The school building survived the catastrophic flood
of 1927 and still stands today.1 The community takes great
pride in the high school, but also acknowledges that it is in
dire need of renovation and repair. The school has over-
crowded classrooms, crumbling fixtures, cracked paint, and
fifty-year-old portable buildings that cannot keep students
warm in the winter. There is inadequate heating and cool-
ing in the buildings, and major electrical system issues. At
the 2008 graduation ceremony, a student fainted because
there was no air conditioning in the gym.2 Avoyelles High’s
principal, Brent Whiddon, said, “[o]ur students are hot
in the summer, cold in the winter and wet on a rainy day.
They should not have to endure those conditions.”3
Avoyelles High is a Title I school with seventy-four percent
of its students qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch.4
These students, many of whom experience significant
economic disadvantages are arguably the students most
harmed by an inadequate learning environment. However,
due to the poor tax base in the parish, the school board has
been unable to successfully levy enough taxes to have major
work done to the schools since 1979.5
The Problem
Avoyelles High School is illustrative of a statewide prob-
lem in Louisiana. On average, 88% of schools in Louisiana
report a need to upgrade or repair on-site buildings to good
1 Mandy Goodnight, “Area School Buildings ‘Intolerable’?,” Daily Town Talk
(Alexandria), July 28, 2008.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences, National Center
for Education Statistics, School, College & Library Search, http://nces.ed.gov/glob-
allocator/ (accessed February 25, 2011).
5 Jeff Matthews, “Banks to Buy Bonds to Help Avoyelles Schools,” Daily Town
Talk (Alexandria), October 14, 2009.
30 Roofs and Rain
overall condition.6 Because children and teachers spend
most of their day inside school buildings, numerous stud-
ies have concluded that the quality of these facilities has
a direct impact on teacher retention, cognitive abilities,
absenteeism, and learning environment. Cognitive require-
ments for learning – motivation, energy, attention, hear-
ing, and seeing – are affected by the physical surroundings
where they take place.7 The amount of light, the indoor air
quality, the temperature, and the cleanliness of schools and
classrooms all impact student learning.8
Further, overcrowded classrooms and schools lead to high
absenteeism for both students and teachers and have det-
rimental effects on children’s ability to learn and perform
well.9 Poor building conditions also greatly increase the
likelihood that teachers will leave their school – a troubling
fact given the need for more and better teachers in the most
disadvantaged schools.10
Numerous studies have concluded
that the quality of educational
facilities has a direct impact
on teacher retention, students’
cognitive abilities, absenteeism,
and learning environment.
Schools with disadvantaged students educate their students
in poor learning environments significantly more than do
schools with wealthier students. The Government Account-
ability Office reported in 1996 that nationwide, schools
with the greatest number of students qualifying for free
or reduced-price lunch also reported the most inadequate
buildings.11 Schools with 70% or more of their students
qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch reported that 41%
6 U.S. General Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office),
School Facilities: Profiles of School Condition by State (1996). Unfortunately,
the G.A.O. nor any other entity has written a more recent report on specific state
school facilities needs.
7 Mark Schneider, Do School Facilities Affect Academic Outcomes? (National
Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities,2002).
8 Glen Earthman, Prioritization of Thirty-One Criteria for School Building
Adequacy, (2004).
9 Schneider, School Facilities.
10 Buckley, Schneider, and Shang, The Effects of School Facility Quality on Teach-
er Retention in Urban School Districts, (National Clearinghouse for Educational
Facilities, 2004).
11 U.S. General Accounting Office (now U.S. Government Accountability Office),
School Facilities: America’s Schools Report Differing Conditions (1996).
Louisiana Progress
of their buildings were inadequate.12 Schools with fewer
than 20% of their students qualifying for free or reduced-
price lunch reported only 25% of their buildings as inad-
equate.13
In most states, local school districts and the state share
the cost of school constructions and renovations. In fact,
forty-one states and Washington, D.C. contribute to the cost
of local school facilities. However, Louisiana provides no
state funding for local school facilities. Louisiana provides
funding to local school districts for education through the
statewide Minimum Foundation Program (MFP). The
MFP combines state and local revenue under a formula
established by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education (BESE) to ensure that every student in Louisiana
receives at least a “minimum foundation” of education. The
local funding in the MFP consists of property and sales
taxes levied by local school boards. State law requires that
school districts use 70% of the MFP to cover instructional
expenses (activities dealing directly with interaction be-
tween students and teachers and activities designed to im-
prove teaching and the process of learning—such as curric-
ulum, teacher salaries, and instructional materials). School
districts use the remaining 30% to cover all other expenses,
including utilities, employee and retiree benefits, student
transportation, and facilities maintenance and construction.
However, the base funding amount in the MFP is seldom
enough to cover all of a school district’s expenses. Thus,
in order to pay for construction or maintenance of school
facilities, the school district must levy taxes specifically for
these purposes. A school board may only levy taxes for
school facilities after the tax rate has been approved in a
bond election. Understandably, the citizens of many poor
parishes have rejected these tax increases year after year.
For example, St. Helena voters have rejected a school tax
four times in the past three years in spite of the fact that
St. Helena’s two schools are posing health risks to students
and faculty.14 Just this past summer, portions of St. Helena
Central High School had to be shut down due to extensive
fire code violations.15 Further, the Louisiana Department of
Health and Hospitals reported that air vents in St. Helena
Central Elementary School were causing contamination in
the cafeteria, and the state Department of Environmental
Quality found asbestos, mold-like substances and ceiling
leaks in both schools. 16
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Bill Lodge, “Judge Asks Parties for Arguments over Tax,” The Advocate, Sep-
tember 2, 2010.
15 Bob Anderson, “Agencies Cite School Buildings, St. Helena Superintendent
Says Modular Classrooms Needed,” The Advocate, August 31, 2010.
16 Ibid.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
AVERAGE CAPITAL OUTLAY
PER STUDENT
$654 Louisiana
$1,090 Southern Region
$1,086 Nation
In the decade before Hurricane Katrina and Rita,
Louisiana’s spending was even lower. Many schools
remain in poor condition due to years of insufficient
facilities funding.
The inability of local school districts to provide adequate
funds for facilities can be seen when comparing Louisiana
to other southern states and the nation. During the 2005-
08 school years, Louisiana spent an average of $654 per
student on capital outlay (funds spent on building construc-
tion or land and building acquisition), as compared to the
southern region’s average of $1,090 and the national average
of $1,086.17 In the decade before Hurricane Katrina and
Rita, spending was even lower. Since then, recovery funds
have enabled hurricane-impacted areas to increase facili-
ties spending, but in other areas of Louisiana it is still very
low. Funds provided by FEMA to most hurricane-impacted
areas were only sufficient to bring schools up to pre-disaster
levels, which is inadequate for Louisiana schools that were
entirely substandard before the disasters. Many schools will
remain in poor condition due to years of insufficient facili-
ties funding.
The Solution
The Scott S. Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives
at Tulane has been working since 2007 to try to establish a
state program to aid local school districts in funding school
facilities needs. In 2007, the Louisiana House of Repre-
sentatives passed then-Representative Cheryl Gray’s House
Concurrent Resolution 230, creating a taskforce to study
and review best practices and approaches to assessing the
17 The southern region includes Alabama, Arkansas, District of Columbia,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia. Mary Filardo et
al., State Capital Spending on PK-12 School Facilities (21st Century School Fund,
2010).
Roofs and Rain 31
condition of school facilities and determining school facili-
ties needs. The Cowen Institute authored the report for the
taskforce, recommending that the Legislature authorize a
Statewide Facilities Assessment and create a school facilities
authority.18
A Statewide Facilities Assessment would review the status
of all current school district facilities and their building and
construction needs. The Assessment would use this data to
formulate an estimate for the cost of funding and complet-
ing all necessary school facilities projects in the state. A
school facilities authority would assist school districts in
constructing new buildings or renovating existing ones to
the extent defined by the Legislature. For example, some
states have a school facilities authority that assists school
districts with obtaining financing for school improve-
ments and construction, while other states’ school facilities
authorities provide school districts directly with state funds
for their projects. Importantly, a school facilities author-
ity uses the data and estimates from a Statewide Facilities
Assessment to determine a plan of action for equalizing and
improving school facilities statewide. Currently, Louisiana
does not provide facilities funds, financing assistance, or
even information on facilities to its school districts.
In January 2008, the Board of Elementary and Secondary
Education (BESE) approved and adopted the taskforce’s
report and recommendations. Shortly thereafter, Sena-
tor Cheryl Gray19 and then-Representative Karen Carter
Peterson introduced bills S.B. 63220 and H.B. 96221, creating
a “Louisiana Statewide Education Facilities Authority” and
a “Louisiana Statewide Educational Facilities Fund,” respec-
tively. S.B. 632 would have created a Facilities Authority
within the Louisiana Department of Education to perform a
statewide assessment of public school facilities.
The Facilities Authority would then “develop a formula
and mechanism” to “assess and prioritize applications for
funding for local projects.” The Facilities Authority would
also ensure equitable allocation of funds to local school
districts throughout the state. Finally, a key provision of
the bill mandated that every construction or renovation
project required the contribution of funds from the local
school district—the Facilities Authority could not fund any
construction project entirely.22
18 Please find the report on the Cowen Institute’s website at http://www.cowen-
institute.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/HCR-230__Report_Final.pdf. Please
note that throughout the report, “School Building Authority” is used to reference a
“school facilities authority.”
19 In November 2007, then-Representative Cheryl Gray won the Senate District 5
election and began serving as State Senator in January 2008.
20 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=498623.
21 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=499724.
22 Please note that the bill provides an exception, in § 409.4(B)(5), allowing the
authority to fund the entirety of local school construction or renovation projects
32 Roofs and Rain
H.B. 962 would have created a special Facilities Fund in the
State Treasury for use by the Facilities Authority. The Facili-
ties Fund would include any monies the Legislature chose to
appropriate, as well as federal funds, donations, gifts, grants,
etc. These bills would not require the Legislature to fund
school facilities, but would create the mechanisms and pro-
cesses, should the Legislature choose to do so in the future.
With unanimous support, the Legislature passed both bills
in June 2008.
Unfortunately, Governor Bobby Jindal vetoed both bills. In
his veto statements, Governor Jindal claimed that the bills
represented a “fundamental shift” away from full traditional
local responsibility for school facilities and would “open the
door to a very costly state-funded school facilities program.”
Specifically, Governor Jindal cited the State’s unmet finan-
cial obligations to statewide retirement systems, deferred
maintenance on roads and state buildings, and the constitu-
tional limit on state supported debt as reasons for his vetoes.
The next month, Governor Jindal attended a town hall
meeting in Avoyelles Parish where the community publicly
questioned his decision to veto both bills, erupting in ap-
plause after Avoyelles Parish School Board President Carlos
Mayeux invited Governor Jindal to drive past and stop to
see Avoyelles High School.23 Governor Jindal explained that
the bill created a fund with no money, so he vetoed bill be-
cause it created “false expectations.”24 Governor Jindal also
stated that he was not opposed to helping schools. 25
Senator Gray and Representative Peterson touring school
facilities in Baton Rouge and Lafayette.
in case of emergency situations caused by natural disasters.
23 Mandy Goodnight, “Jindal Hears of Avoyelles High Needs,” Daily Town Talk
(Alexandria), August 8, 2008.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
Louisiana Progress
In December 2008, the Cowen Institute led a statewide
facilities tour with Senator Gray and then-Representative
Peterson. The legislators visited several public schools,
including Avoyelles High School, to see some of the most
pressing school facilities needs in our state first-hand.
At Prescott Middle School, the two legislators were able to
see the result of the school district’s $800 million backlog of
renovation work.26 When Advance Baton Rouge, a char-
ter school, took over the failing school in July earlier that
year, the 53-year-old building had broken lighting, perva-
sive water spots, and unusable locker rooms with broken
showers and missing urinals and sinks.27 The two legislators
also visited subpar facilities at Madison Middle School in
East Baton Rouge and Tensas High School in Tensas Par-
ish. Throughout the tour, Senator Gray and Representative
Peterson repeatedly expressed their commitment to creating
a Facilities Authority and Facilities Fund.
Senator Gray Evans28 and Representative Peterson kept their
pledge, and during the 2009 Regular Legislative Session,
they both reintroduced legislation to create the Facilities
Authority and Fund. S.B. 90,29 the Facilities Authority bill,
failed to pass out of the House Appropriations Committee,
but the Legislature passed H.B. 689,30 creating the Louisiana
Statewide Educational Facilities Fund. This time, Gover-
nor Jindal signed the bill into law as Act 226 in June 2009.
While this legislation brought equity in school facilities one
step closer, without a statewide assessment and a Facilities
Authority to manage the fund, the Facilities Fund is useless.
In November 2009, Senator Gray Evans and Representative
Peterson, among others, participated in the Cowen Insti-
tute’s Second Annual Statewide Facilities Tour, once again
vowing to create a Facilities Authority. This time, the legis-
lators returned to East Baton Rouge to tour Bernard Terrace
Elementary and Istrouma High School. Bernard Terrace
Elementary in East Baton Rouge has been operating in the
same building since 1927, and suffers from overcrowded
classrooms, flooding problems, cracked paint, and a caf-
eteria that is unable to adequately serve the students. The
legislators also visited Green T. Lindon Elementary and L.J.
Alleman in Lafayette Parish. Lindon elementary was built
in 1958 as a segregated campus for black students only.31
26 Jeremy Harper, “Group: Prescott Middle in Bad Shape,” The Advocate, July 31,
2008.
27 Ibid.
28 Senator Cheryl Gray married in 2009, taking on the name Gray Evans.
29 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=663115.
30 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=653004.
31 Tina Marie Macias, “Lindon School Conditions Shock Lawmakers,” Daily
Advertiser (Lafayette), November 14, 2009.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize Roofs and Rain 33
In addition to the building’s historical legacy of segrega-
tion, the campus is experiencing severe overcrowding. The
capacity of the school holds 370 students, but 736 students
were attending the school at the time of the tour, with half
of the students attending class in portable buildings—and at
least one of those portable buildings was 60 years old.32 L.J.
Alleman Middle School had doors that were not compliant
with the Americans with Disabilities Act, heating and cool-
ing problems, and an inadequate cafeteria.33

In February 2010, Karen Carter Peterson won a special elec-

tion to replace Cheryl Gray Evans as the State Senator for
Senate District 5 after Senator Gray Evans resigned. Dur-
ing the 2010 Regular Legislative Session, Senator Peter-
son introduced S.B. 584 to once again attempt to create a
Statewide Facilities Authority.34 The Legislature passed the
legislation substantively intact, with a few amendments.
One important amendment required the Facilities Author-
ity to create a “revolving loan fund” to enable the State to
grant small low- or no-interest loans to school districts to
finance school improvements. This provision guaranteed
that school districts would receive financing assistance from
the State even if the Legislature chose not to appropriate
monies to fund large-scale construction projects. Once
again, Governor Jindal rejected the will of the Legislature
and vetoed S.B. 584.35 His veto statement largely repeated
the reasons he had given for rejecting the bill in 2009—lo-
cal responsibility, deferred maintenance on roads and state
buildings, and unfunded liability in statewide retirement
systems. Had Governor Jindal not vetoed this bill, the Leg-
islature would finally have had the ability to provide assis-
tance to local school districts in constructing or renovating
school facilities—the opportunity to provide every student
in Louisiana with an adequate learning environment.
School Facilities Now
This school year, Avoyelles High School was able to finally
put air conditioning in the gymnasium. Two local banks
provided the parish school board with $5 million of funding
from interest-free bonds for construction needs.36 In addi-
tion to the new air conditioning, Avoyelles High will be able
to complete several other long-needed renovations to the
campus with its portion of the money.
32 Ibid.
33 Tina Marie Macias, “Building Assessments Online,” Daily Advertiser (Lafay-
ette), January 6, 2010.
34 http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=720704.
35 http://www.legis.state.la.us/archive/10RS/veto/SB584v.pdf.
36 Jeff Matthews, “Banks to Buy Bonds to Help Avoyelles Schools,” Daily Town
Talk (Alexandria), October 14, 2009.
Avoyelles High School
Avoyelles High school got lucky.
Thanks to an unexpected act of charity from the private sec-
tor, Avoyelles High School can fix its buildings. However,
Avoyelles High cannot depend on random acts of kindness
to maintain and repair its buildings in the future. Without a
predictable system of facilities funding, Avoyelles High will
soon fall into disrepair and end up in the same predicament
several years from now. And other schools in Louisiana
have not been lucky like Avoyelles High. School districts
like East Baton Rouge, Tensas, St. Helena, and Lafayette, to
name only a few, continue to struggle to keep their schools
from becoming dilapidated.
The State of Louisiana allocates a relatively low amount of
funding for public education in the MFP, and as a result,
local communities in Louisiana already take on a relatively
higher share of obligation for providing for public schools.
Compared to other states in our region, local communities
in Louisiana are made to contribute a higher amount to-
ward public school funding. And once a school district has
paid for instructional purposes, teacher salaries, utilities,
and transportation, there is no money left for school facili-
ties. While coastal school districts experienced an influx of
facilities money from federal government disaster recovery
funds, other school districts not impacted by the hurricanes
continue to languish. And the federal disaster recovery
money will only go so far. Louisiana school districts cannot
depend on hurricanes, or the generosity of local businesses
to save their schools.
Local communities cannot continue to shoulder the burden
34 Roofs and Rain
of capital expenses alone. Only a predictable, equitable
system of facilities funding at the state level can ensure that
every school district—rich or poor—is able to build and
maintain school buildings where children can learn in a
safe, dry, and warm environment. The Louisiana Legisla-
ture has passed legislation to lay the foundation for such a
system the past three consecutive sessions.
The upcoming 2011 legislative session is a fiscal session,
so there will likely be no action on a Statewide Facilities
Authority this year. However, the November 2011 guber-
natorial election and the 2012 Regular Legislative Ses-
sion provides Louisiana citizens a chance to redirect the
priorities of the Governor’s office on school facilities. The
Legislature has proven that it is willing to put the needs of
schoolchildren in Louisiana first. Should a Statewide Facili-
ties Authority bill come to the governor’s desk once again in
2012, we hope that the Governor—whoever it may be—will
choose to do the same.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
The following issues and bills are mentioned in this edition of the Louisiana Progress Journal. Please contact your
elected representatives and let them know your views on the issues.
• Closing $7.1 billion in corporate tax exemptions in
the Louisiana budget
• Reconsidering the repeal of the Stelly Plan
• Raising the cigarette tax to raise revenue and
decrease long-term health care costs
• Consolidating and closing state colleges and
universities, and raising tuition rates
• Louisiana Progress’ Pathways to Prosperity Initiative
to deal with poverty and move Louisiana forward
• Privatizing state prisons, and its negative impact on
the prison system and the unlikelihood of savings
• HB 288 (Rep. Moreno) to permit second-parent
adoption and increase the number of children in
two-parent households
• HB 112 (Rep. Badon) requiring schools to adopt
policies prohibiting harrassment, intimidation and
bullying
Louisiana Progress
The Scott S. Cowen Institute for Public Education
Initiatives at Tulane University is an action-ori-
ented think tank creating and advancing solutions
to the issues impeding student achievement in
New Orleans and beyond.
Areas of concentration include Applied Research,
Public Policy, University-Based Initiatives, and
College Readiness Programs.
Additional information can be found online at:
http://www.coweninstitute.com.
If you have information or pictures of unmet
facilities needs in your local schools, you can
email to Cowen Institute at hreid@tulane.edu.
• SB 211 (Sen. Morrell) prohibiting discrimination
based on sexual identity, and gender identity and
expression in state employment
• A Statewide Facilities Authority to help provide a
predictable, equitable system of education facilities
• Repeal of the Louisiana Science Education Act
(LSEA)
CONTACT YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS
• Governor Jindal: 866-366-1121
• U.S. Senator Landrieu: (202) 224-5824
• U.S. Senator Vitter: (202) 224-4623
• U.S. Representatives Lookup/Contact:
http://writerep.house.gov/writerep
• Louisiana Legislator Lookup/Contact:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/district/zipcode.asp
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
Respect Requires Repeal:
The Louisiana Science Education
Act of 2008
Barbara Forrest
In June 2008, when Governor Jindal signed SB 733 into law
as the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA), the national
media barely noticed. But when this stealth creationist
law prompted the Society for Integrative and Compara-
tive Biology to inform Jindal that SICB would boycott New
Orleans in favor of Salt Lake City for its 2011 meeting, the
announcement flew across national newswires, making
headlines in the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher
Education.1 Katie Couric highlighted it in a video edito-
rial at CBS.2 Our friends around the country who wept for
us after Hurricane Katrina shook their heads in disbelief.
How could a state where public education is so crucially
important — and whose governor is a Rhodes scholar with
an Ivy League biology degree — do this again? Wasn’t one
Supreme Court decision about creationism in Louisiana
enough?
Apparently not. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s declara-
tion in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) that Louisiana’s 1981
“Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-
Science in Public School Instruction Act” was unconstitu-
tional, the legislature has again capitulated to the Religious
Right by enacting a law permitting public school science
teachers to use creationist teaching materials.3 This law was
1 Richard Satterlie, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, to Gov.
Bobby Jindal, February 5, 2009, http://www.sicb.org/resources/LouisianaLetter-
Jindal.pdf. See also Adam Nossiter, “Boycott by Science Group over Louisiana
Law Seen as Door to Teaching Creationism,” New York Times, February 16, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17boycott.html?_r=1&ref=us. See also
Charles Huckabee, “Biologists Won’t Meet in Louisiana Because of State Law on
Teaching Evolution,” Chronicle of Higher Education, February 16, 2009, http://
chronicle.com/article/Biologists-Won-t-Meet-in/42427.
2 Katie Couric, “Katie Couric’s Notebook: Laws of Science,” CBS Evening News,
February 18, 2009, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_162-4811801-500803.
html.
3 The LSEA is Louisiana’s second creationist law in less than thirty years. In
1981, Gov. Dave Treen signed the “Louisiana Balanced Treatment of Creation-
Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act.” See Edwards v.
Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/
Respect Requires Repeal 35
promoted only by creationists. Neither parents, nor science
teachers, nor scientists requested it. No one wanted it except
the Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), a religious organization
that lobbies aggressively for its regressive agenda, and the
Discovery Institute (DI), a creationist think tank in Seattle,
Washington, that couldn’t care less about Louisiana chil-
dren.
If legislators and Governor Jindal want to make Louisiana a
respectable place for high-tech economic development and
families with children, they must repeal this law. They will
get the chance when Senator Karen Carter Peterson intro-
duces repeal legislation during the 2011 Regular Session.4
How Louisiana Got the LSEA
The LSEA permits teachers to use “supplementary” materi-
als in order to promote “critical thinking skills, logical anal-
ysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories
being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the
origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”5 The
law’s language reflects creationists’ consistent federal court
defeats, after which they must always morph into something
less recognizable — and, they hope, less legally vulnerable.
“Creation science” morphed into “intelligent design” in
1988 after the Edwards ruling, and in 1996 DI began imple-
menting a national strategy to get intelligent design into
public schools.6 After a federal judge declared intelligent
design unconstitutional in the first intelligent design legal
USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZS.html.
4 Zachary Kopplin, “Press Release: The Repeal Is Public!” Repealing the Loui-
siana Science Education Act—Creationism in Disguise Blog, February 16, 2011,
http://www.repealcreationism.com/281/press-release-the-repeal-is-public/.
5 Louisiana Legislature, Act 473, Louisiana Science Education Act, R.S. 17:285.1,
Regular Session 2008, http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=08
RS&billid=SB733.
6 See Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge
of Intelligent Design, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), chapter
2.
36 Respect Requires Repeal
case, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005) —
“the Dover trial” — DI recalibrated, targeting Louisiana and
five other states in 2008.7 With the term “intelligent design”
now a legal liability, DI had to disguise intelligent design
as something else.8 The post-Kitzmiller strategy required
that it be disguised with code phrases; hence the absence of
“creationism” and “intelligent design” from the language of
the LSEA.
DI now shrouds intelligent design in various alternative
identities: “critical thinking,” as in the LSEA; “teaching
the controversy”; “strengths and weaknesses of evolution”;
“evidence for and against evolution”; and, as seen below,
“academic freedom.”9 Creationists such as those at the LFF
instantly recognize these code terms. However, the local
foot soldiers don’t always stick to the playbook. Senator Ben
Nevers, who filed the Louisiana bill, candidly told a newspa-
per that he introduced it on the LFF’s behalf because “they
believe that scientific data related to creationism should be
discussed when dealing with Darwin’s theory.”10 After some
quick spinning and a letter to the newspaper from LFF’s
executive director, Rev. Gene Mills — “This bill is not about
teaching creationism or religion” — Nevers got back on
message, and the legislation continued its fast track to final
passage.11 DI’s national “academic freedom” campaign was
at stake, and for reasons explained below, Louisiana offered
their best chance of success.
In 2007, DI began promoting its “Model Academic Free-
dom Statute on Evolution,” a template for state legislation.12
Nevers’ first bill, SB 561, was entitled the “Louisiana Aca-
demic Freedom Act”; it was revised, renumbered as SB 733,
and renamed as the “Louisiana Science Education Act”
7 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Distict, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa.
2005), http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf. I was an
expert witness for the plaintiffs.
8 DI fellow David DeWolf helped craft the LSEA. See Discovery Institute, “David
DeWolf on the Louisiana Academic Freedom Bill,” Intelligent Design the Future
podcast, 14:31, June 13, 2008, http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/
index/2008-06-13T15_24_01-07_00.
9 Barbara Forrest, “Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement:
Its True Nature and Goals” Center for Inquiry, July 2007, http://www.centerforin-
quiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf.
10 Sylvia Schon, “Bill Allows Teaching Creationism as Science,” Hammond (LA)
Daily Star, April 6, 2008, http://www.hammondstar.com/articles/2008/04/25/top_
stories/9327.txt. (emphasis added) Nevers has introduced creationist legislation
before. His unsuccessful HCR 50 in 2003 encouraged school systems to “refrain
from purchasing textbooks that do not present a balanced view of the various
theories relative to the origin of life but rather refer to one theory as proven fact.”
Like the LSEA, HCR 50 was a stealth creationist bill promoting “critical thinking”
on the false premise that there are scientific alternatives to evolution. See Louisiana
Legislature, House Concurrent Resolution No. 50, Regular Session, 2003, http://
www.legis.state.la.us/leg_docs/03RS/CVT1/OUT/0000K4Q7.PDF.
11 Gene Mills, letter to the editor, Hammond (LA) Daily Star, “Not About
Teaching Creationism,” April 11, 2008, http://www.hammondstar.com/ar-
ticles/2008/04/11/opinion/letters/9760.txt.
12 Discovery Institute, “Model Academic Freedom Statute on Evolution,” Septem-
ber 7, 2007, http://www.academicfreedompetition.com/freedom.php.
Louisiana Progress
when the bill encountered opposition from the Louisiana
Coalition for Science (LCFS).13 “Academic freedom” is a
ruse that Louisiana creationists also used to promote the
1981 Balanced Treatment Act. Although the Supreme Court
explicitly rejected the state’s academic freedom defense in
its Edwards ruling, DI colluded with the LFF to promote
the LSEA under exactly the same guise.14 The way for the
law had been paved in November 2006 when the Ouachita
Parish School Board adopted a “Resolution on Teacher
Academic Freedom to Teach Scientific Evidence Regarding
Controversial Scientific Subjects,” which LFF operative Dar-
rell White wrote.15 Rep. Frank Hoffman (District 15), then
OP Assistant Superintendent of Education, promoted the
policy. DI approvingly labeled it a “model policy support-
ing teacher academic freedom to question Darwin” in The
Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators,
in which intelligent design is described as a “legitimate
scientific theory” that is constitutional in classrooms.16 By
2008, Hoffman was serving in the House of Representatives
and shepherded SB 733 through the House Education Com-
mittee, claiming, “[T]his bill is not about science, it’s about
academic freedom for teachers.”17
SB 733 received final passage on June 16, 2008, and Jindal
signed it on June 25. In his June 15 appearance on Face the
Nation, Jindal had reiterated his previously voiced sup-
port for teaching intelligent design.18 At the LCFS’s urging,
petitioners from across Louisiana and the country, includ-
ing national scientific organizations, urged him to veto the
bill.19 The New York Times and conservative National Re-
view columnist John Derbyshire publicly called for Jindal’s
13 The Louisiana Coalition for Science is a group of citizens, teachers, and
scientists working to protect Louisiana public school science education. See http://
lasciencecoalition.org.
14 The Court held that “the Act does not further its stated secular purpose of ‘pro-
tecting academic freedom.’” See Edwards v. Aguillard (1987).
15 Ouachita Parish School Board, “Ouachita Parish Science Curriculum
Policy,” November 29, 2006, Ouachita Parish School System, http://www.opsb.
net/downloads-file-166.html. See also Darrell White, “Proposed School Board
Policy: Science Education,” Origins Science website, http://web.archive.org/
web/20051221181251/http://www.judgewhite.com/docs/proposedresolution.pdf.
16 See “Board Gives Teachers ‘Academic Freedom,’” Ouachita Citizen, November
29, 2006, http://www.ouachitacitizen.com/news.php?id=530. See also Discov-
ery Institute, The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educa-
tors (2007), 7, http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.
php?command=download&id=1453.
17 Michael DeVault, “‘Academic Freedom’ Bills Questioned,” Ouachita Citi-
zen (West Monroe, LA), April 23, 2008, http://www.ouachitacitizen.com/news.
php?id=2137.
18 Jindal’s Face the Nation appearance is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=va84asuu1zQ. See also Brian Thevenot, “Governor Hopefuls Say
Faith Personal; But Some Say Beliefs Have Political Effect,” New Orleans Times-
Picayune, November 2, 2003. See also Barbara Forrest, “Bobby Jindal’s Creationist
Talking Points,” Talk to Action Blog, June 14, 2008, http://www.talk2action.org/
story/2007/10/15/222041/63.
19 See Louisiana Coalition for Science, “Letters and Statements,” Louisiana Coali-
tion for Science Blog, http://lasciencecoalition.org/letters/.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
veto.20 Even a public plea from one of Jindal’s former
professors at Brown University, where he earned a biology
degree, was futile.21 Jindal ignored everyone, signing the
bill without comment.
Although Louisiana is so far the only state to adopt such
legislation, the fact that the LSEA is a product of the col-
laboration between the LFF and DI gives it broad implica-
tions. Louisiana’s passage of SB 733 has become a bellwether
for the introduction in other states of legislation closely
tracking both SB 561 and the revised SB 733. In January
and February 2011 alone, eight bills were introduced in
Kentucky, Oklahoma (two bills), Missouri, Tennessee (two
bills), New Mexico, and Florida. The New Mexico and
Oklahoma bills have already been tabled. 22 Virtually every
significant creationism outbreak in the United States since
1999 has been the product of DI’s aggressive execution of its
“Wedge Strategy” for getting intelligent design into public
schools.23 Typically, DI operatives arrive on the scene after
local Religious Right groups do the initial spadework, a pat-
tern that DI followed in Louisiana, where its proxy, the LFF,
had promoted creationism for a decade.
Louisiana Family Forum Involvement
The LFF has long been a stalking horse for regressive leg-
islation and policy. It was co-founded in 1998 by former
Louisiana legislator Tony Perkins, who now heads the Fam-
ily Research Council (FRC) in Washington, DC; Rev. Gene
Mills, the current executive director; and Darrell White,
a retired Baton Rouge City Court judge.24 The LFF’s self-
described mission is to “present biblical principles in the
centers of influence on issues affecting the family through
communication, research and networking,” in order, as the
FRC notes, to get “the conservative voting community more
actively involved in the political process.”25 Its primary cen-
ter of influence is the Capitol, a few blocks from its Baton
20 John Derbyshire, “Governor Jindal, Veto This Bill!” The Corner, National
Review Online, June 20, 2008, http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/164801/
governor-jindal-veto-bill/john-derbyshire. See also “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on
Darwin,” New York Times, June 21, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/
opinion/21sat4.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin.
21 Bill Barrow, “Science Law Could Set Tone for Jindal,” New Orleans Times-
Picayune, June 26, 2008, http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/science_
law_could_set_tone_for.html.
22 For information about 2011 antievolution bills, see National Center for Science
Education (NCSE), “Anti-evolution,” http://ncse.com/news/anti-evolution. For
bills introduced from 2004-2010, see NCSE, “‘Academic Freedom’ Bills by State &
Year,” http://ncse.com/creationism/general/academic-freedom-bills-by-state-year.
23 Concerning DI’s strategy, see Forrest and Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse,
chapter 2.
24 Family Research Council, “Biography: Louisiana Family Forum,” http://www.
frc.org/biography/louisiana-family-forum-brief-history.
25 See Louisiana Family Forum, “About LFF,” http://www.lafamilyforum.org/
about-lff. See also Family Research Council, “Biography: Louisiana Family Forum.”
Respect Requires Repeal 37
Rouge office. A statewide contingent of clergy, the LFF’s
“Pastors Resource Council,” function as de facto lobbyists
during legislative sessions. According to the FRC, “Louisi-
ana Family Forum’s staff, resource council members, and a
multitude of pastors have steadily altered a volatile political
landscape. . . . Ten years on, Louisiana legislators . . . have
come to rely on the Louisiana Family Forum.”26 The LFF’s
“Legislative Scorecard,” which “reports annually on how
each Louisiana legislator votes on key family issues” — and
is highlighted on the LFF’s “Action Center” website — helps
explain that influence.27 The LFF also rewards loyal legisla-
tors at an annual, post-session awards dinner, which spon-
sors can finance at up to $10,000 per table.28
It is therefore probably not an exaggeration to say that most
Louisiana legislators support the LFF’s political agenda,
and that those who don’t have had the fear of the Lord put
into them (so to speak), knowing they will be targeted in
the next election if they cross this organization. The softs-
poken Rev. Mills, as much a political operative as a man of
the cloth, plays hardball: “[Y]ou don't go to a gunfight with
a knife in your hand.”29 (He has also stooped to exploit-
ing tragedy to promote his antievolution agenda, referring
to Jared Loughner, who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle
Giffords, as a “mentally disturbed Darwinist.”30) In one of
his “End of Week” newsletters, Mills boasts of his personal
influence with state officials: “Attorney General Buddy
Caldwell in a personal phone call and Gov. Bobby Jindal in
a face-to-face conversation both assured me that Louisiana
laws regarding the marriage and abortion matters will be
aggressively defended against federal encroachment!”31 His
interference in public education is especially brazen given
the fact that his own children are homeschooled, with the
older ones attending a private, Christian high school.32
In 2008, changing legislative demographics converged with
Jindal’s electoral victory to put even more wind in the LFF’s
sails. The April 20, 2008, Monroe, LA, News Star noted,
“[T]he new Legislature is probably the most conservative
26 Family Research Council, “Biography: Louisiana Family Forum.”
27 Louisiana Family Forum, “Action Center,” http://www.lafamilyforum.org/ac-
tion%20center.
28 Louisiana Family Forum, “2010 Legislative Awards Banquet,” http://www.
lafamilyforum.org/2010awardsbanquet.
29 Jeremy Alford, “Louisiana Family Forum: An Inside Look at the LFF and
How Its Agenda Is Growing in Scope,” Gambit (New Orleans, LA), June 1,
2010, http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/louisiana-family-forum/
Content?oid=1279010. See also Jeremy Alford, “Holy Warriors,” Independent
Weekly (Lafayette, LA), May 26, 2010, http://www.theind.com/cover-story/6289-
holy-warriors.
30 Gene Mills, “Respect for Life,” End of Week, newsletter, January 21, 2011,
http://www.lafamilyforum.org/012111EW.
31 Gene Mills, “The Louisiana Cavalry Is Coming!” End of Week, newsletter,
August 13, 2010, http://www.lafamilyforum.org/ew081310.
32 Gene Mills, “Christmas Letter,” December 2008. On file with Barbara Forrest.
38 Respect Requires Repeal
Louisiana has had since Reconstruction, observers say, and
it’s possibly the most religious.”33 Mills observed that “he
has found the new Legislature ‘very family and faith friend-
ly’ with ‘an acute sense of the need to protect basic values.’”34
The LFF maintains a close alliance with Jindal, as Adam
Nossiter revealed in the June 2, 2008, New York Times, as
the LSEA was nearing Jindal’s desk: “At the group’s modest
offices here [in Baton Rouge], Mr. Jindal is seen as practi-
cally one of the family.”35 This tight relationship explains
why, as the bill sped through the legislative process, a New
York Times editorial had it right: “All that stands in the way
of this retrograde step is Gov. Bobby Jindal.”36
The LFF had good reason to cultivate Jindal as an ally given
their plan to advance creationist legislation. With his elec-
tion, the LFF’s stars were aligned. It was time to make their
move. The LFF approached Nevers, while DI waited in the
wings to implement its “academic freedom” strategy.37 The
LFF’s relationship with DI was probably initiated by Darrell
White, who has promoted creationism for years. He part-
ners with Baton Rouge creationist Charles Voss to promote
creationist addenda that Voss wrote for use with state-
approved biology textbooks after the LFF failed in 2002 to
block approval of new textbooks by the Board of Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education (BESE).38 White’s now-
defunct “Origins Science” website featured links to Answers
in Genesis, which runs the infamous “Creation Museum”
in Kentucky, and to intelligent design creationist materials.
He also contends that the “uncritical teaching of Darwin-
ian evolutionism” caused the 1999 Columbine shootings.39
During DI’s 2003 attempt to influence the Texas Board of
Education’s selection of biology textbooks, White attended
board hearings and wrote a letter of support for DI.40 After
DI announced its “academic freedom” strategy in 2007,
the LFF began targeting Louisiana’s science curriculum in
earnest, and DI joined the scheme. The LFF had laid the
33 Mike Hasten, “New Legislature Seen as More Conservative, Religious,” Monroe
(LA) News Star, April 20, 2008.
34 Ibid.
35 Adam Nossiter, “In Louisiana, Inklings of a New (True) Champion of the
Right,” New York Times, June 2, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/
us/02jindal.html.
36 “Louisiana’s Latest Assault on Darwin,” New York Times, June 21, 2008.
37 Tina Macias, “Evolution Bill Up for Vote Again,” Opelousas (LA) Daily World,
June 16, 2008.
38 Concerning the 2002 textbook selection, see Will Sentell, “Evolution Dis-
claimer Supported,” Baton Rouge Advocate, December 11, 2002. Voss’s addenda
are downloadable at http://www.textaddons.com.
39 White’s “Origins Science” website is in the Internet Archive at http://web.
archive.org/web/20051221181251/www.judgewhite.com/origins.html. For his
Columbine comments, see Judge Darrell White (retired), “A Tale of Two Flies,”
Answers in Genesis, February 21, 2006, http://www.answersingenesis.org/
docs2006/0221flies.asp.
40 Darrell White to Texas Board of Education, October 9, 2003, http://lascience-
coalition.org/docs/2003_Darrell_White_TX_Letter.pdf.
Louisiana Progress
groundwork for the LSEA with the Ouachita Parish policy.
The template for Ouachita’s academic freedom policy was
White’s “Proposed School Board Policy: Science Education,”
which he posted on his Origins Science website.41 Using
DI’s code phrases, the Ouachita policy permits science
teachers “to help students understand, analyze, critique,
and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths
and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to
the course being taught” — the exact language in Nevers’
first bill, SB 561. The policy targets “controversial” subjects:
“biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global
warming, and human cloning,” all of which are included in
SB 561 and the LSEA (SB 733).42
Moreover, the LFF was set to receive taxpayer funding for
its Ouachita initiative. In 2007, Sen. David Vitter earmarked
$100,000 in a federal spending bill “to promote better
science-based education in Ouachita Parish by the Louisi-
ana Family Forum.”43 When the Times-Picayune blew the
lid off the scheme, Vitter redirected $30,000 of the earmark
directly to the Ouachita Parish School Board for “science
and technology.”44 Where the remaining $70,000 went is
unknown.
At least one public school teacher implemented the
Ouachita policy. In 2006, former West Monroe High School
biology teacher Danny Pennington, now assistant princi-
pal at Goodhope Middle School in West Monroe, helped
persuade the school board to adopt the policy. Penning-
ton later revealed that, under the policy, “when he teaches
evolution he also presents evidence that he says pokes holes
in the science.”45 This was tantamount to admitting that
he was teaching creationism, which the LSEA now permits
statewide. Moreover, Pennington created a lesson plan using
creationist material pulled from the Internet for distribution
to other science teachers. He was also videotaped teaching
creationist talking points in his fall 2007 biology class. The
41 Darrell White, “Proposed School Board Policy: Science Education,” Origins
Science website, n.d., http://web.archive.org/web/20041213144516/http://judge-
white.com/docs/proposedresolution.pdf.
42 See Louisiana Legislature, SB 561, Louisiana Academic Freedom Act,
Regular Session, 2008, http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.
asp?did=472973. See SB 733, Louisiana Science Education Act, http://www.legis.
state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=503483.
43 Bruce Eggler, “Vitter Earmarked Federal Money for Creationist Group,”
New Orleans Times-Picayune, September 22, 2007, http://blog.nola.com/times-
picayune/2007/09/vitter_earmarked_federal_money.html. LFF staffers Dan Richey
and Beryl Amedee both worked for Vitter’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As a state
senator (1979-1983), Richey co-sponsored the 1981 Balanced Treatment Act.
See Louisiana Legislature, Senate Bill No. 86, Louisiana Balanced Treatment of
Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act, Regular
Session, 1981.
44 Barbara Leader, “$30K Redirected to Technology in Parish Schools,” Monroe
(LA) News Star, Monroe, LA, October 23, 2008.
45 Barbara Leader, “Legislature Debates Science’s Say in the Classroom,” Monroe
(LA) News Star, Monroe, LA, April 14, 2008.
 Inform, Engage, Mobilize
LFF distributed the video to the media, no doubt trying to
provoke a legal test case.46
Most of Nevers’ original SB 561, the “Louisiana Academic
Freedom Act,” came from the Ouachita policy. However,
one prominent part — a disclaimer stating that the bill
“shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine,
promote discrimination for or against a particular set of
religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against
religion or nonreligion” — comes from DI’s model statute
and remains in the LSEA. This disclaimer, a flimsy attempt
at preemptive legal self-defense, is a dead giveaway that the
LSEA is designed precisely to promote religion. Laws about
science education don’t need religion disclaimers.
Fallout from the LSEA
Besides damaging Louisiana’s already tattered reputation
concerning public education, the LSEA has done tangible
harm, the most compelling example being the SICB boycott.
In 2009, when SICB announced the boycott and called for
other scientific societies to do likewise, Jindal responded
through his spokesman Kyle Plotkin: “That's too bad. New
Orleans is a first-class city for a convention.”47 SICB’s an-
nouncement was preceded in 2008 by a similar call from
Gregory Petsko, then president of the American Society for
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology:
The ASBMB Annual Meeting is scheduled to take
place in New Orleans in April 2009... But... we need
to see to it that no future meeting... will take place in
Louisiana as long as that law stands... And I call upon
the presidents of the American Chemical Society, the
American Association of Immunologists, the Society
for Neuroscience, and all the other scientific societies
around the U.S. and the world, to join me... and make
clear to the state legislators in Louisiana, the gov-
ernor... and the mayor and business bureau of New
Orleans that this will be the consequence... Governor
Jindal can be reached through his website... and so can
Mayor Ray Nagin.48
46 See David Winkler-Schmit, “Monkey Business: The Louisiana Science
Education Act,” Gambit (New Orleans, LA), March 9 2009, http://www.bestof-
neworleans.com/gambit/monkey-business-the-louisiana-science-education-act/
Content?oid=1255754. Pennington’s lesson plan and DVD on file with Barbara
Forrest.
47 Bill Barrow, “National Science Group Boycotting Louisiana in Protest of Sci-
ence Education Act,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, February 16, 2009, http://
www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/02/national_science_boycotting_lo.html.
48 Gregory A. Petsko, “President’s Message: It Is Alive,” ASBMB Today, August
2008, 4, http://www.asbmb.org/uploadedFiles/ASBMBToday/Content/Archive/
ASBMBToday-August-2008.pdf.
Respect Requires Repeal 39
Gene Mills dismissed the boycott, parroting Jindal’s spokes-
man: “That’s too bad.”49
Not content with passing the LSEA, the LFF continues its
grab for power over science education. In September 2009,
LFF creationists convinced BESE to delete prohibitions
against creationism from the Louisiana Handbook for School
Administrators, which implements the LSEA in parish
school districts. Consequently, teachers, administrators, and
school boards lack clear guidelines under the LSEA con-
cerning supplementary materials. Teachers can use blatantly
creationist materials until parents complain. Then, once a
complaint is filed, the process is stacked in favor of cre-
ationists because the LFF also influenced BESE’s complaint
policy. The role of the Department of Education profes-
sional staff has also been undermined.50 In fall 2010, the
LFF again tried to block approval of new biology textbooks
as in 2002. However, this time they failed when the Louisi-
ana Coalition for Science succeeded in persuading BESE to
approve the textbooks.51
Most ominously, the Livingston Parish School Board has
discussed using the LSEA to add creationism to the science
curriculum, proving that no one is fooled about the true
intent of the LSEA. In April 2008, Livingston Parish board
member David Tate, attending a legislative hearing for the
bill, declared, “I believe that both sides — the creationism
side and the evolution side — should be presented.”52 In
July 2010, Tate, supported by board member Clint Mitchell,
urged action at a board meeting: “Why can’t we get some-
one with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”53 Although
Tate and Mitchell have left the board, the board president,
Keith Martin, agrees: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.”54
Regardless of whether Livingston Parish follows through,
another school board or a teacher like Danny Penning-
ton will eventually risk litigation by using the LSEA for its
49 Gene Mills, letter to the editor, Baton Rouge Advocate, March 10, 2009, http://
www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/41004047.html?showAll=y&c=y.
50 Concerning the Handbook policy, see Barbara Forrest, “Louisiana Open for
Business — Creationists Welcome,” Louisiana Coalition for Science Blog, January
25, 2009, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2009/01/25/louisiana-open-for-business/.
Concerning the review policy, see Barbara Forrest, “For Immediate Release: Cre-
ationists Continue to Dictate BESE Science Education Policy,” Louisiana Coalition
for Science Blog, September 30, 2009, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2009/09/30/
creationists-dictate-bese-policy/.
51 Will Sentell, “BESE Committee OKs Controversial Textbooks,” Louisiana
Politics Blog, Baton Rouge Advocate, December 7, 2010, http://www.2theadvocate.
com/blogs/politicsblog/111463304.html. See also Barbara Forrest, “The Students
Won in Louisiana Today . . . and Again!,” Louisiana Coalition for Science Blog,
December 8, 2010, http://lasciencecoalition.org/2010/12/08/students-won-in-
louisiana-today/.
52 Bill Barrow, “Panel OKs Bill on Science Texts,” New Orleans Times-Picayune,
April 18, 2008.
53 Vic Couvillion, “School Board Might OK Teaching Creationism,” Baton
Rouge Advocate, July 24, 2010, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/99153999.
html?showAll=y&c=y.
54 Ibid.
40 Respect Requires Repeal Louisiana Progress

intended purpose. For this reason alone, the law must be re-
pealed. One public school student has undertaken that task.
Barbara Forrest is a Louisiana professor and
The LSEA Repeal Initiative co-founder of the Louisiana Coalition for Science.

Zachary “Zack” Kopplin, a Baton Rouge Magnet High
School senior, is doing what responsible adults in Louisiana
should be doing: he has mounted a repeal initiative.55 Hav-
ing chosen this as his senior project, he also helped LCFS
secure approval of the biology textbooks in 2010, testifying
at public meetings of both the Textbook/Media/Library
Advisory Council and BESE.56
Senator Karen Carter Peterson will introduce a repeal bill
in the 2011 Regular Session of the legislature. If it survives
the Senate, Rep. Walt Leger will handle it in the House. In
2008, both houses passed the LSEA with only three dissent-
ing votes — reflecting the LFF’s influence while Jindal was
still on his political honeymoon with a legislature that was
reluctant to cross him. Now, three years later, the repeal bill
will give both the legislature and the governor a chance to
correct their mistake.
She serves on the Board of Directors of the National
Center for Science Education and on the Board
of Trustees of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State.
Barbara writes extensively about intelligent design cre-
ationism and served as an expert witness for the plain-
tiffs in the first legal case involving intelligent design,
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005),
which was decided for the plaintiffs. She helped coor-
dinate the opposition to the Louisiana
Science Education Act in 2008.

Respect Requires Repeal

KEEP UP WITH
LOUISIANA
The LSEA threatens to drag us back to 1981, when the
legislature put Louisiana in the annals of creationist history

PROGRESS
by passing the Balanced Treatment Act. Despite our im-
age as an educational backwater, we have come a long way.
Louisiana has dedicated teachers and scientists whose work
commands the legislature’s and the governor’s respect. But
in 2008, these citizens were out-numbered and out-orga-
nized because they were doing their jobs while the LFF was
politicking at the Capitol. facebook.com/laprogress

The LSEA threatens not only the decades of progress for

@laprogress
which these good people have worked so hard but also the
future of Louisiana’s students. If the legislature and Gov.
Jindal truly want to make Louisiana a great place to live and feedburner.com/louisianaprogress
raise a family rather than merely a colorful tourist attraction
and the object of catastrophe-induced pity, the legislature
must repeal this law. And Bobby Jindal must sign the repeal
bill as willingly as he signed the LSEA.
Become a member and help
move Louisiana forward!
55 See Kopplin’s website, Repealing the Louisiana Science Education Act—Cre-
ationism in Disguise, http://www.repealcreationism.com. www.louisianaprogress.org
56 Will Sentell, “Panel Approves Contested Science Textbooks,” Baton Rouge
Advocate, November 13, 2010, http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/107646133.
html?showAll=y&c=y. See also Jan Moller, “Biology-textbook Debate Addresses
Issue of How Evolution Is Portrayed,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, December
8, 2010, http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2010/12/biology-textbook_de-
bate_addres.html.