I listened to the outcry against tax reform, ... And as someone concerned about and committed to the future of ... Inadequate services have the potential to cause

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�#� ��$� %��&

��'��(�)*(+!,!!

-. /0��* +).((-,!!0�).*+!�!*

��12�-. /0��* +/�/.3+��2�4# ��(5��6��6��6��

��6��6��6��7�88&

��

Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report i

PrefaceLast summer, a friend told me a story that played a significant role in spurring the creation of thispublication. The story goes like this:

A group of stereotypical “soccer moms,” gathered for a match, were celebrating thefailure of the state legislature to reform and pass a state income tax.

Talk then turned to another subject: the state of the county’s schools. The mothers,who live in the richest county in Tennessee, began to bemoan the sorry state of theircounty’s school system, considered one of the better in Tennessee. The moms weredismayed by the poor selection of foreign language, art, music, drama, etc., classesavailable in the middle schools. Well-traveled and not Tennessee natives, they saidthat the selection was more limited than any place they had ever lived.

This story typifies the lack of understanding that many Tennesseans have about the impact of thestate tax structure and its chronic revenue shortages on the programs and services provided in thisstate. As a result, the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth began preparation of this reportto try to help others understand how we are failing our children.

As a native Tennessean, it is heartbreaking year after year to report that outcomes and other measuresrelated to Tennessee children often rank at or near the bottom nationally. As we have explored someof the reasons for this, too frequently they come back to the issue of funding. Education and otherservices for children in Tennessee simply have a legacy of underfunding.

As I listened to the outcry against tax reform, I often thought about a quote that is generallyattributed to former Representative John Bragg from Murfreesboro, who chaired the House FinanceWays and Means Committee for many years until his retirement. Representative Bragg was anadvocate for a state income tax, and observed, “Show me a Tennessean who thinks he is over-taxed,and I will show you a native.”

People who have lived in other states know that an income tax is not the end of the world and, inmany instances, has provided the revenue needed for basic programs and services, like foreignlanguages, to prepare children to compete in a global economy.

Study after study comes to the same conclusion: the tax structure in Tennessee is inadequate andproduces chronic problems. Likewise, study after study concludes that Tennessee needs an incometax to provide a balanced approach to revenue that grows with the economy.

As a child advocate, for many years my focus had exclusively been on programs and services forchildren in Tennessee. However, as a parent of a high school senior, the past year talk of colleges hasoccupied a significant amount of time at our house. As we considered college options and reviewednational rankings, I was dismayed with many of our findings.

When I went to college, attendance at the “best” public university in the state was the course for meand for my siblings, since my parents could not see any reason to pay out-of-state tuition for other

ii Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report

states’ schools that were not ranked significantly better than those in Tennessee. I espoused the sameattitude to my daughter. Then I experienced horror when I realized that virtually every flagshipuniversity in the Southeast is ranked higher than the top-ranked university in this state, my almamater, the University of Tennessee.

At a presentation to a group of non-profit organizations last summer, Tennessee State Treasurer SteveAdams observed that the public university academic ranking of the University of Tennessee was 44th ,and that if the ranking of the University of Tennessee football team were that bad, “There would beblood in the streets.” Unfortunately, Tennesseans are not sufficiently concerned about the academicranking. As a U.T. football fan, I am certainly glad the team is better than others in the SoutheasternConference, but as a parent I am now deeply troubled by how far the reputation of higher educationin Tennessee has fallen below other public universities in the South.

And as someone concerned about and committed to the future of Tennessee, I am distressed aboutthe general state of higher education. Even those who do not have children, grandchildren, nieces,nephews, or neighbors whose college education is important to them should be concerned abouthigher education. A strong higher education system is crucial for future economic development.Perhaps more important, especially if you do not have family or friends to care for you when you areold and infirm, you will rely on the products of Tennessee’s high schools, colleges, and universitiesto meet your needs when you can no longer meet them yourself.

Some people wonder if the fact that only four other Southern states have lower percentages of adultsolder than age 25 with at least a high school diploma or with a college degree adversely influencesour emphasis on education, and especially higher education. However, my personal experience, and Ibelieve the experience of countless other Tennesseans, is that many parents who did not go to collegestill want their children to have the opportunity to attend.

Discussions in a Senate committee meeting in late January 2001 highlighted the lack of affordabilityof college for many families in the 47 poorest counties in the state where annual college costs wouldbe about 10 percent of median household income. In response to a suggestion that education issimply not a priority in the family budget, Senator Bob Rochelle responded: “That’s like saying folksin these counties don’t like filet mignon. They’re not going (to college) because they can’t afford it.”

A bright future for Tennessee truly depends on improving the quality of life for our children today.Are we failing our children in Tennessee? Perhaps “failing” is too harsh, but certainly we are noteven remotely doing all that we should or could to ensure that they have the best opportunitiespossible to become productive citizens who can compete in the global economy. A state that ranks33rd in per capita income is far too wealthy to rank in the lower 40s on spending measures foreducation and other services.

We Tennesseans may live in a low tax state, but, since we get what we pay for, we give our childrensubstantially less than they deserve. Inadequate services have the potential to cause Tennesseechildren to be left behind, not only left behind other children in the nation, but other children in thesouth. That is simply too high a price to pay. We must do more for the children of Tennessee, for theytruly are our future.

Linda O’NealExecutive Director

July 27, 2001

Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report iii

AcknowledgmentsTennessee KIDS COUNT Director – Pam Brown

TCCY Executive Director and Executive Editor – Linda O’NealTennessee KIDS COUNT Research Analysts – Isaac Nwaise, Brian Grove, and Edwina Chappell

Writers – Pam Brown, Fay L. Delk, Steve Petty, Debbie Wynn, and Linda O’NealLayout – Fay L. Delk

Special thanks to:Steve Adams, Tennessee State Treasurer

John Morgan, Comptroller of the Treasury, State of TennesseeWilliam F. Fox, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Center for Business and Economic Research

Ronnie Steinberg, Women’s Institute for Policy Studies, Vanderbilt UniversityTennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

Tennessee Higher Education CommissionPrinting funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Tennessee Commission On Children and YouthThe Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth (TCCY) is an independent state agency advocatingfor improvement in the quality of life of children and families. To fulfill this mission, TCCY collectsand disseminates information on children and families for the planning and coordination of policies,programs, and services; administers and distributes funding for teen pregnancy prevention programsand for improvements in juvenile justice; and evaluates the delivery of services to children in statecustody.

Members of the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth

Betty Cannon, Chair, Nashville

Angi Agle, Oak Ridge

Betty Anderson, Covington

Kimalishea Anderson, Knoxville

Shirlene Booker, Gray

P. Larry Boyd, Rogersville

Rebecca G. Dove, Springfield

Jim Ford, Franklin

Kandenna Greene, Goodlettsville

Johnny W. Horne, Chattanooga

Drew Johnson, Nashville

Jim Kidd, Fayetteville

Mary Lee, Dickson

Christy Little, Jackson

Alisa Malone, Franklin

Jerry Maness, Memphis

Sharon T. Massey, Clarksville

Linda Miller, Memphis

Suzan Mitchell, Johnson City

John Rambo, Johnson City

Mary Kate Ridgeway, Paris

James Stewart, Jackson

iv Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report

Tennessee Moments in 2000Every 28 minutes a baby was born into poverty.Every 21 minutes a baby was born to an unmarried mother.Every 43 minutes a baby was born to a teenage mother.Every 3 hours a baby was born to a mother receiving late or no prenatal

care.Every hour a baby was born at low-birth-weight.Every 14 hours a baby died during the first year of life.Every 53 seconds a public school student was suspended from school.Every 2 minutes a public school student was corporally punished in school.Every 49 minutes a child was reported abused or neglected.Every 23 hours a child or youth died by accident.Every day a child or youth died in an auto accident.Every 4 days a child or youth was murdered.Every 8 days a child or youth committed suicide.Every 3 days a child or youth was killed by a firearm.

From the Children’s Defense Fund

Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report v

Table of ContentsA Three-Star View ........................................................................ iiIndicators of Child Well-Being ...................................................... 1

Unmet Education and Training Needs ......................................... 11Early Childhood Education ...................................................12K-12 Education .....................................................................15Higher Education .................................................................19An Industrial Recruiter’s View ............................................. 22Digital Divide ...................................................................... 23

Unmet Health Care Needs .......................................................... 27TennCare ............................................................................ 28Physical Health of Tennessee’s Children ...............................31

Unmet Resource Needs ............................................................... 35Income and Poverty ............................................................. 36Tennessee’s Economic Deficit ...............................................41Tax Reform ......................................................................... 46

A Three-Star View ...................................................................... 58

Tennessee Can Do Better ............................................................ 59

References ................................................................................... 63

vi Unmet Needs 2001 A Tennessee KIDS COUNT/Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth Report

êêêA Three-Star Viewêêêfrom C. Warren Neel, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Finance

and Administration. Copyrighted by The (Nashville) Tennessean, July 12, 2001.

Our problem in Tennessee is not overspending; it is underspending on the kidsThere’s a daily debate in Tennessee about whether our state has a spending problem or a revenue problem.

My answer is, we have both.

We have a spending problem in that we spend less per capita to educate our children than every other state in theunion except Mississippi and Hawaii.

We have a spending problem in that we are the only state in the Southeast that puts zero dollars toward astatewide reading initiative to prepare our children for school and to help them become better readers.

We have a spending problem in that we, for the past two years, have been spending one-time funds to coveryearly recurring expenses.

We’ve turned to one-time funds because we have a regressive sales-tax system in Tennessee that is unable tokeep up with the demands of our rapidly growing population

That’s like trying to feed, clothe and house a growing family today on the same salary you earned 10 years ago.

You could probably do it, but you’d have to shortchange the children when it comes to their health care, theireducation and the food they eat.

Chances are, if you’ve worked hard to sock away money in a savings account, you could maintain your lifestylefor a while. But once the savings are gone, what are your choices?

Most Americans find a way to earn a living that affords them the modern necessities. I know very few peoplewho consciously and willingly strive to give their families the very least they can. Most people do whatever they can doto increase their family incomes, move up to better homes and give their children more advantages than what theythemselves enjoyed as children.

Why should we expect less from our government? Why should Tennessee be content to be 50th in taxation whenit means remaining last or near the bottom in every other category, namely education?

The National Governor’s Association’s recent Fiscal Survey of States is correct.

The budget that Gov. Don Sundquist proposed this year is 9.2 percent higher than last year’s. It would have beenless than 6 percent higher, including improvements, had we not first had to fill the budgetary hole caused by last year’sdecision to use one-time expenditures and artificially inflated revenue projections.

But we did have to fill that hole, a hole that’s three times larger than the cost of the Governor’s reading initiative.

During the last seven years, states all across the country have enjoyed unprecedented growth. Many haveexperienced budget surpluses, allowing them to cut taxes and invest more in their states.

Meanwhile, Tennessee’s investments in education and the like have fallen behind because our tax system barelyaffords us the status quo.

Despite nearly eight years of tax cuts in other states Tennessee remains 50th in taxation.

Meanwhile, our state government spending is growing at a slower rate than at any time in the last 25 years.

Since 1975, the spending growth rate for state appropriations in Tennessee has been cut in half, going from anaverage growth of 13.9 percent two decades ago to an average of 7.2 percent during the Sundquist administration,including fiscal year 2002.

That cut in growth came in large part thanks to the advent of TennCare, which has saved this state about $2billion since its inception.

If spending money on improving education, health care and caring for our children is considered aspending problem, then the Sundquist administration is guilty as charged.

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"�� #��$%%�&�� '� ��(�� )��*�� *�� +��

,�� "��

� �� "�� -��)��

�� ., /�0123� �� 4�� $%%�� 55%��,�� )�� *� ��

)�� 6�� $�� *� ��*�� $%%�� 4�� '��'��

�� *� ��*�� "�� (��

0��*�� *� �� ., /�0123� �� 7�� '��'��

�� *� ��*�� ., /�0123� �� "�� ., /�0123� ��

8�� 3��&9��

��

��

data rank data rank data rank1990 8.2 44 10.3 41 35 361991 8.8 47 10.0 39 35 391992 8.5 44 9.4 37 32 351993 8.8 47 9.4 39 32 351994 8.8 45 8.9 40 33 421995 8.7 44 9.3 43 32 371996 8.8 45 8.5 39 30 321997 8.8 41 8.6 41 30 391998 9.1 46 8.2 36 27 31

data rank data rank data rank1990 75 30 45 38 35 421991 81 36 48 41 36 441992 77 36 45 40 35 401993 84 39 43 38 34 411994 91 43 43 37 32 361995 90 44 42 38 29 271996 81 40 40 38 27 201997 77 43 39 40 26 191998 79 45 38 40 24 18

data rank data rank1990 13 42 22 391991 13 44 n.a. n.a.1992 12 41 n.a. n.a.1993 11 36 n.a. n.a.1994 10 31 26 391995 11 34 n.a. n.a.1996 13 44 22 341997 13 45 21 341998 12 41 19 32

Source: 2001 KIDS Count Data Book: State Profiles of Child Well-Being, The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Percent of Children in Poverty

YearRate of Teen Deaths by Accident, Homicide, and

Suicide

Teen Birth Rate

Percent of Children Living with Parents Who Do Not Have Full-Time,

Year-Round Employment

Table 1Tennessee Rates and Ranks By Indicators,

1990-98

Year

Percent of Low-Birth-Weight Babies Infant Mortality Rate Child Death Rate

Year

Percent of Teens Who Are High School

Dropouts

! ��

Indicators

Low-Birth-Weight Babies 1

Infant Mortality 1

Child

Death Rate 2

Teen Deaths by Accident, Homicide and Suicide 3

Teen Birth Rate 4

Children Living with Parents Who Do Not Have Full-Time, Year-Round Employment 6

Teens Who Are High School Dropouts 5

Children in Poverty 6

Tennessee Rank, 1998 46 36 31 45 40 18 41 32Tennessee Rate, 1998 9.1 8.2 27 79 38 24 12 19

Rate for Top State,

1998 5.4 4.4 11 33 11 16 5 10Tennessee Indicator Volume,

1998 7,008 635 280 305 4,196 346,000 37,000 258,300Indicator-

Based Population,

1998 77,334 77,334 1,071,011 376,965 109,859 1,446,889 301,395 1,446,889Required Reduction in Volume 2,832 295 162 181 2,988 114,498 21,930 113,611Percent (%)

of Reduction Required 40.4 46.4 57.9 59.2 71.2 33.1 59.3 44.0

Population Based on:

1) Total Number of Births

2) Total Number of Children Ages 1-143) Total Number of Teens Ages 15-19

4) Total Number of Females Ages 15-175) Total Number of Teens Ages 16-196) Total Number of Children Ages 0-18

Required Reduction for Tennessee Based on 1998 DataTo Equal Highest Rank

Table 2


�� "

Tennessee 7,024 2,838 634 294 279 162 305 181 4,183 2,978* By county data based on Tennessee 2000 Kids Count book.

** per 1,000

*** per 100,000

Sources: Targeted rates - 2001 Kids Count Book, The Annie E. Casey Foundation.

1 9 9 8 D a t a

N e e d e d R e d u c t io n

1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


A n d e r s o n 7 4 3 0 6 3 1 1 6 4 4 9 3 5B e d f o r d 5 0 2 0 7 3 0 0 3 2 3 6 2 6B e n t o n 7 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 0B le d s o e 9 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 8B lo u n t 9 1 3 7 6 3 1 1 3 2 5 4 3 8B r a d le y 9 8 4 0 4 2 5 3 5 3 5 8 4 1C a m p b e l l 4 9 2 0 3 1 5 3 1 1 3 3 2 3C a n n o n 8 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 8 6C a r r o l l 2 6 1 1 1 0 1 1 4 2 1 8 1 3C a r t e r 5 6 2 3 2 1 2 1 4 2 2 2 1 6C h e a t h a m 3 7 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 6C h e s t e r 1 4 6 5 2 1 1 1 1 8 6C la ib o r n e 4 0 1 6 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 9C la y 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1C o c k e 3 1 1 3 5 2 0 0 2 1 2 4 1 7C o f f e e 7 0 2 8 5 2 2 1 4 2 4 5 3 2C r o c k e t t 1 4 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 9 6C u m b e r la n d 3 8 1 5 3 1 3 2 5 3 2 5 1 8D a v id s o n 8 3 0 3 3 5 6 8 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 5 1 5 4 5 1 3 2 1D e c a t u r 8 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 7 5D e K a lb 1 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 2D ic k s o n 4 2 1 7 0 0 3 2 1 1 2 6 1 9D y e r 3 6 1 5 3 1 4 2 2 1 4 1 2 9F a y e t t e 5 3 2 1 0 0 4 2 3 2 3 1 2 2F e n t r e s s 8 3 1 0 2 1 2 1 8 6F r a n k l in 4 0 1 6 5 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 6G ib s o n 4 8 1 9 3 1 2 1 4 2 3 9 2 8G ile s 3 2 1 3 1 0 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 7G r a in g e r 1 7 7 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 4G r e e n e 5 8 2 3 5 2 3 2 3 2 4 6 3 3G r u n d y 2 1 8 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 7H a m b le n 5 6 2 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 3 7H a m ilt o n 3 7 1 1 5 0 2 8 1 3 1 0 6 1 4 8 2 3 0 1 6 4H a n c o c k 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1H a r d e m a n 3 9 1 6 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 5 2 5H a r d in 2 5 1 0 3 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 9H a w k in s 4 8 1 9 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 4H a y w o o d 2 6 1 1 4 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 4H e n d e r s o n 2 9 1 2 4 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 5H e n r y 4 0 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 1 9H ic k m a n 1 9 8 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 7H o u s t o n 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 6H u m p h r e y s 2 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 9J a c k s o n 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4J e f f e r s o n 3 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 6J o h n s o n 1 3 5 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 8K n o x 4 2 7 1 7 3 2 5 1 2 1 2 7 1 7 1 0 1 7 0 1 2 1L a k e 9 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 4L a u d e r d a le 5 7 2 3 4 2 1 1 5 3 4 6 3 3L a w r e n c e 4 0 1 6 5 2 3 2 3 2 3 7 2 6L e w is 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 5

T e e n V i o l e n t D e a t h s * * *

T e e n B i r t h R a t e * *

L o w - B i r t h -W e i g h t B a b i e s

C o u n t y

In f a n t M o r t a l i t y * * C h i l d D e a t h s * * *

Low-Birth-Weight Babies

Infant Mortality **

Child Deaths***

Teen Violent Deaths***

Teen Birth Rate**

Tennessee Rate: 9.1 percent 8.2 per 1,000 27 per 100,000 79 per 100,000 38 per 1,000Top State Rate: 5.4 percent 4.4 per 1,000 11 per 100,000 33 per 100,000 11 per 1,000Current Volume: 7,008 635 280 305 4,196Targeted Volume: 4,177 340 118 124 1,208

Table 3aHow to Improve Tennessee’s Nationwide Ranking

To Equal Highest Rankfor Selected 1998 Indicators

# ��

Tennessee 7,024 2,838 634 294 279 162 305 181 4,183 2,978* By county data based on Tennessee 2000 Kids Count book.

** per 1,000

*** per 100,000


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


L in c o ln 2 9 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 7 1 2L o u d o n 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 5 3 2 0 1 4M a c o n 2 1 8 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1M a d is o n 1 0 3 4 2 1 0 5 6 3 5 3 7 2 5 1M a rio n 2 7 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 6M a rs h a ll 2 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 4 1 0M a u ry 8 1 3 3 5 2 3 2 4 2 6 1 4 3M c M in n 6 2 2 5 3 1 4 2 3 2 3 2 2 3M c N a iry 2 1 8 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 4 1 0M e ig s 1 4 6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7M o n ro e 4 4 1 8 2 1 5 3 1 1 4 2 3 0M o n t g o m e ry 1 9 6 7 9 2 5 1 2 1 0 6 6 4 8 1 5 8M o o re 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1M o rg a n 3 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 8 6O b io n 3 7 1 5 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 7O v e rt o n 1 3 5 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 7P e rry 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 4P ic k e t t 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5P o lk 1 7 7 3 1 2 1 1 1 8 6P u t n a m 5 6 2 3 8 4 0 0 2 1 3 2 2 3R h e a 4 8 1 9 3 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 1 4R o a n e 4 7 1 9 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 2 3R o b e r t s o n 5 1 2 1 7 3 5 3 1 1 4 4 3 1R u t h e rfo rd 2 0 9 8 4 2 2 1 0 4 2 7 4 1 2 9 9 2S c o t t 2 7 1 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 7 1 2S e q u a t c h ie 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 6S e v ie r 8 5 3 4 5 2 0 0 3 2 4 3 3 1S h e lb y 1 7 1 2 6 9 2 2 0 4 9 5 7 2 4 2 4 2 2 5 1 0 0 6 7 1 6S m it h 1 9 8 2 1 3 2 0 0 9 6S t e w a r t 1 4 6 3 1 0 0 1 1 7 5S u lliv a n 1 4 8 6 0 1 2 6 5 3 3 2 6 8 4 8S u m n e r 1 2 8 5 2 9 4 8 5 6 4 7 2 5 1T ip t o n 6 8 2 7 6 3 5 3 5 3 4 4 3 1T ro u s d a le 7 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 4U n ic o i 1 7 7 4 2 2 1 5 3 1 3 9U n io n 2 3 9 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 1 1V a n B u re n 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 4W a rre n 3 6 1 5 6 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2W a s h in g t o n 1 0 1 4 1 9 4 2 1 6 4 5 3 3 8W a y n e 1 0 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 7W e a k le y 3 1 1 3 4 2 0 0 1 1 1 4 1 0W h it e 2 9 1 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 9 1 4W illia m s o n 1 0 7 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 2 2 9 2 1W ils o n 6 9 2 8 3 1 5 3 1 0 6 4 7 3 3

T e e n V i o l e n t D e a th s * * *

T e e n B i r th R a te * *

C o u n ty

L o w -B i r th -W e i g h t B a bi e s

In fa n t M o r ta l i ty * * C h i l d D e a th s * * *

Low-Birth-Weight Babies

Infant Mortality **

Child Deaths***


Teen Birth Rate**

Tennessee Rate: 9.1 percent 8.2 per 1,000 27 per 100,000 79 per 100,000 38 per 1,000Top State Rate: 5.4 percent 4.4 per 1,000 11 per 100,000 33 per 100,000 11 per 1,000Current Volume: 7,008 635 280 305 4,196Targeted Volume: 4,177 340 118 124 1,208

Table 3b

How to Improve Tennessee’s Nationwide Ranking

To Equal Highest Rankfor Selected 1998 Indicators

�� $

Indicators

Low-Birth-Weight Babies 1

Infant Mortality 1

Child

Death Rate 2

Teen Deaths by Accident, Homicide and Suicide 3

Teen Birth Rate 4

Children Living with Parents Who Do Not Have Full-Time, Year-Round Employment 6

Teens Who Are High School Dropouts 5

Children in Poverty 6

Tennessee Rank, 1998 46 36 31 45 40 18 41 32Tennessee Rate, 1998 9.1 8.2 27 79 38 24 12 19Rate for Nation,

1998 7.6 7.2 24 54 30 26 9 20Tennessee Indicator Volume,

1998 7,008 635 280 305 4,196 346,000 37,000 258,300Indicator-

Based Population,

1998 77,334 77,334 1,071,011 376,965 109,859 1,446,889 301,395 1,446,889Required Reduction in Volume 1,131 78 23 101 900 None 9,874 NonePercent (%)

of Reduction Required 16.1 12.3 8.2 33.3 21.5 None 26.7 None

Population Based on:

1) Total Number of Births

2) Total Number of Children Ages 1-143) Total Number of Teens Ages 15-19

4) Total Number of Females Ages 15-175) Total Number of Teens Ages 16-196) Total Number of Children Ages 0-18

Required Reduction for Tennessee Based on 1998 DataTo Equal National Average

Table 4


% ��

Tennessee Rate:National Rate:Current Volume:Targeted Volume:

Child Deaths***

30 per 1,000

Table 5a


Infant Mortality** 8.2 per 1,000


Teen Birth Rate**

38 per 1,000

To Equal National AverageLow-Birth-

Weight Babies9.1 percent 27 per 100,000 79 per 100,000

7.2 per 1,0007.6 percent 24 per 100,000 54 per 100,000

3,2947,008 280 305

557635

for Selected 1998 Indicators

4,1965,880 257 203

Tennessee 7,024 1,131 634 78 279 23 305 102 4,183 899* By county data based on Tennessee 2000 Kids Count book.

** per 1,000

*** per 100,000


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


A n d e r s o n 7 4 1 2 6 1 1 0 6 2 4 9 1 1B e d f o r d 5 0 8 7 1 0 0 3 1 3 6 8B e n t o n 7 1 2 0 2 0 2 1 1 4 3B le d s o e 9 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 2B lo u n t 9 1 1 5 6 1 1 0 3 1 5 4 1 2B r a d le y 9 8 1 6 4 0 5 0 5 2 5 8 1 2C a m p b e l l 4 9 8 3 0 5 0 1 0 3 3 7C a n n o n 8 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 8 2C a r r o ll 2 6 4 1 0 1 0 4 1 1 8 4C a r t e r 5 6 9 2 0 2 0 4 1 2 2 5C h e a t h a m 3 7 6 3 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 5C h e s t e r 1 4 2 5 1 1 0 1 0 8 2C la ib o r n e 4 0 6 3 0 1 0 3 1 1 2 3C la y 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0C o c k e 3 1 5 5 1 0 0 2 1 2 4 5C o f f e e 7 0 1 1 5 1 2 0 4 1 4 5 1 0C r o c k e t t 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 9 2C u m b e r la n d 3 8 6 3 0 3 0 5 2 2 5 5D a v id s o n 8 3 0 1 3 4 6 8 8 2 0 2 2 5 8 4 5 1 9 7D e c a t u r 8 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 7 2D e K a lb 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 4D ic k s o n 4 2 7 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 6 6D y e r 3 6 6 3 0 4 0 2 1 4 1 9F a y e t t e 5 3 9 0 0 4 0 3 1 3 1 7F e n t r e s s 8 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 8 2F r a n k lin 4 0 6 5 1 1 0 2 1 2 2 5G ib s o n 4 8 8 3 0 2 0 4 1 3 9 8G ile s 3 2 5 1 0 2 0 2 1 2 4 5G r a in g e r 1 7 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 4G r e e n e 5 8 9 5 1 3 0 3 1 4 6 1 0G r u n d y 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 2H a m b le n 5 6 9 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 2 1 1H a m ilt o n 3 7 1 6 0 2 8 3 1 0 1 1 4 5 2 3 0 4 9H a n c o c k 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0H a r d e m a n 3 9 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 5 8H a r d in 2 5 4 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 3H a w k in s 4 8 8 2 0 3 0 4 1 3 4 7H a y w o o d 2 6 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 4H e n d e r s o n 2 9 5 4 0 2 0 3 1 2 1 5H e n r y 4 0 6 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 6 6H ic k m a n 1 9 3 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 2H o u s t o n 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 2H u m p h r e y s 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 3J a c k s o n 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1J e f f e r s o n 3 1 5 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 5J o h n s o n 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2K n o x 4 2 7 6 9 2 5 3 1 2 1 1 7 6 1 7 0 3 7L a k e 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 1L a u d e r d a le 5 7 9 4 0 1 0 5 2 4 6 1 0L a w r e n c e 4 0 6 5 1 3 0 3 1 3 7 8L e w is 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 2

T e e n V i o l e n t D e a t h s * * *

T e e n B i r t h R a t e * *

L o w - B i r t h -W e i g h t B a b i e s

C o u n t y

In f a n t M o r t a l i t y * * C h i l d D e a t h s * * *

�� &

Tennessee Rate:National Rate:Current Volume:Targeted Volume:

30 per 1,000

Table 5b


Infant Mortality** 8.2 per 1,000


Teen Birth Rate**

38 per 1,000

To Equal National AverageLow-Birth-

Weight Babies9.1 percent 27 per 100,000 79 per 100,000

Child Deaths***

7.2 per 1,0007.6 percent 24 per 100,000 54 per 100,000

3,2947,008 280 305

557635

for Selected 1998 Indicators

4,1965,880 257 203

Tennessee 7,024 1,131 634 78 279 23 305 102 4,183 899* By county data based on Tennessee 2000 Kids Count book.

** per 1,000

*** per 100,000


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


1 9 9 8 D a t a


L in c o ln 2 9 5 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 7 4L o u d o n 3 0 5 1 0 1 0 5 2 2 0 4M a c o n 2 1 3 4 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 3M a d is o n 1 0 3 1 7 1 0 1 6 0 5 2 7 2 1 5M a rio n 2 7 4 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 5M a rs h a ll 2 4 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 3M a u ry 8 1 1 3 5 1 3 0 4 1 6 1 1 3M c M in n 6 2 1 0 3 0 4 0 3 1 3 2 7M c N a iry 2 1 3 3 0 3 0 3 1 1 4 3M e ig s 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2M o n ro e 4 4 7 2 0 5 0 1 0 4 2 9M o n t g o m e ry 1 9 6 3 2 2 5 3 1 0 1 6 2 8 1 1 7M o o re 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0M o rg a n 3 0 5 2 0 0 0 1 0 8 2O b io n 3 7 6 5 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 2O v e rt o n 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2P e rry 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1P ic k e t t 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2P o lk 1 7 3 3 0 2 0 1 0 8 2P u t n a m 5 6 9 8 1 0 0 2 1 3 2 7R h e a 4 8 8 3 0 3 0 3 1 2 0 4R o a n e 4 7 8 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 3 7R o b e rt s o n 5 1 8 7 1 5 0 1 0 4 4 9R u t h e rfo rd 2 0 9 3 4 2 2 3 4 0 7 2 1 2 9 2 8S c o t t 2 7 4 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 7 4S e q u a t c h ie 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 2S e v ie r 8 5 1 4 5 1 0 0 3 1 4 3 9S h e lb y 1 7 1 2 2 7 6 2 0 4 2 5 7 2 6 4 2 1 4 1 0 0 6 2 1 6S m it h 1 9 3 2 0 3 0 0 0 9 2S t e w a rt 1 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 7 2S u lliv a n 1 4 8 2 4 1 2 1 5 0 3 1 6 8 1 5S u m n e r 1 2 8 2 1 9 1 8 1 6 2 7 2 1 5T ip t o n 6 8 1 1 6 1 5 0 5 2 4 4 9T ro u s d a le 7 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 1U n ic o i 1 7 3 4 0 2 0 5 2 1 3 3U n io n 2 3 4 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 5 3V a n B u re n 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 1W a rre n 3 6 6 6 1 2 0 2 1 3 1 7W a s h in g t o n 1 0 1 1 6 9 1 2 0 6 2 5 3 1 1W a y n e 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2W e a k le y 3 1 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 3W h it e 2 9 5 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 9 4W illia m s o n 1 0 7 1 7 4 0 4 0 4 1 2 9 6W ils o n 6 9 1 1 3 0 5 0 1 0 3 4 7 1 0

T e e n V i o l e n t D e a th s * * *

T e e n B i r th R a te * *

C o u n ty

L o w -B i r th -W e i g h t B a bi e s

In fa n t M o r ta l i ty * * C h i l d D e a th s * * *

��

��

��

��

� ��

)�� :��9( ��/��:��:��+��555&��/��;��;�� <

� 3��

� /��

� =�� *��

� ��

� !��'��

#��/��

8��0� ��8�� '��'��'��

� )�� $�%%%�� 8��0� ��8��

State-Funded Preschool Programs 1999-2000

Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) States

Source: Southern Regional Education Board, 2000

State Program State Funding Children Served

Alabama Alabama Preschool Collaboration Project $300,000 150

Arkansas Arkansas Better Chance (ABC) $6,000,000 5,200

Georgia Prekindergarten Early Intervention Program

$224,000,000 62,500

KentuckyKentucky Preschool

Program $44,600,000 15,500

Louisiana Preschool Block Grant $67,000,000 2,600

MississippiProposal is being considered by the

legislature$0 0

North Carolina Smart Start $220,000,000 100,000

South Carolina Early Childhood Program

$23,200,000 165,000

Tennessee Early Childhood Pilot Program $6,100,000 600

��

��

� )��$�%%%�� ; ��>7?�� >$$%�� 3��0��

� ��$%%%�� >4� �� 4%�� 6�� ;�� ;��

� ��@��6��*��>�$�� $%%%'$%%�� 8�� 18&�� 18�� >4�� >4�� )�� $%$%��>7?��

�� A�� *�� B��

� 0� �� *��

� 0� �� '��

� C��*��

� 0� �� *�� ;��

� 0� ��;��

)��8��0� ��8�� *� ��'��;��

Return to Taxpayers on Per Participant Investment in a High Quality Early Childhood Program

Source: L.J. Scweinhart, H.V. Barnes, and D.P. Weikart. (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation,10). Ypsilanti, Michigan: High/Scope Press.

$-12,356

$6,287 $8,847$2,918

$12,796

$57,585

Pro

gra

m

Sch

oo

ling

Tax

es o

n E

arn

ing

s

Wel

fare

Just

ice

Sys

tem

Cri

me

Vic

tim

s

Cost

Savings

�! ��

Child Care Ratios Worker/ChildComparison of Current State Standards/U.S. Recommended

Ratios

*Developed by American Public Health Association and American Academy of Pediatrics

Age Group TN Worker to Child U.S. Recommended Ratios

Infant1 Worker/4 Infants

(2/1/02)*1 Worker/3 infants, 0-24mo.

Toddler1 Worker/6 Toddlers

(2/1/02)*1 Worker/4 Toddlers, 25-30mo.

Two-Year-Olds1 Worker/7 Children

(2/1/02)*1 Worker/5 Children, 31-35

Months

Three-Year-Olds1 Worker/9 Children

(7/1/03)*1 Worker/7 Children

Four-Year-Olds1Worker/13 Children


Five-Year-Olds1 Worker/16 Children


Six-Year-Olds1 Worker/20 Children


A�� *�� 9�� *��

!��9�� ' �� !�� $%%$�� =��$%%4�

�� !

� )��

� 0�� 6��'�� 6��

� /��

� 0�� 6��

�� "

8�� D�� E�)�� 6�� +�� +�� *� �� "�� =�� ;�� +�� D:�� E��/��*� ��"��$%%%��&�

� ��55F'5G�� "#�� 7%�� @�� B ��/��C��

� �� $%��

� ,�� 8�� /�� 0��3�� 0��8�� /�� &�� '��()�� *�� +��+ ��

� #�� 6��'�� ;�� $�� 3�� 6��5��

� :�'�� ;�� #�� $$�� 3�� G��

��

� ��0� ��6� �� 6�� $%��7�� $%%%��

� ��$,��

W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999

��

��

��

��!��"��

�# ��

� ��A��'��-�� &�� +�� D�� *�� E�� ;� �� B �� ,�� B ��

,��55$�� )��C�� 8�� :��557��'��;�� '��

� �� .�� (��

�� /��'�� ;��;� ��&��

� ,�� +��$��+�� $,��

� ��/�+�� B ��

� � �� +�� (� ��$,��2�/�� !�� $%%��

D�� +�� E��

� "� �� ; ��55$�3�� )��)��! ��&�� 0,#�� 1�� 02%�� 1�� 1��

!�� *��

� ,��$�� 3�� %� �� ,��55G�� 4��4� ��

,��+�� 6�� B��

�� $

Social Promotion

/�� '�� ;�� &��/�� '�� D�� E� �� /A8C��$%%�&�

5�� (��+�� !

� )�� '��;��-�,�� -

� ,�� -

� )�� &�� B�� -

� �� -

� )�� ;�� -

� ,��*� �� -�)�� '*�� 6��-

� )�� ;�� &-

� ,�� *� �� -

� )��9�� -

� ,�� '*�� -

� )�� -

� )�� /A8C��$%%�&-

�%��

��

��

��

��

��

State Policies on Grade Promotion and Retention in Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) States

Source: Finding alternatives to Failure: Can States End Social Promotion and Reduce Retention Rates? SREB, 2001

State Alabama Arkansas Delaware Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Maryland MississippiNorth

CarolinaOklahoma

South Carolina

Tennessee Texas Virginia

State specifies requirements

for grade promotion

NO proposed NO YES YES NO NO YES NO NO YES YES YES

NO statewide

goal is 97% promotion in grades K-8

YES NO

State end-of-grade tests required

NO YES 4,6,8YES

3,5,8,10YES 3-8 YES 1-8 YES 4,5,7,8 YES 4,8 NO YES 2-8 YES 3-8 YES 3,5,8 YES 3-8 NO YES 3-8 YES 3,5,8

Test score may be sole cause for retention

NO NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO

NO but a major factor at grades

3,5,8

NOYES after

failingNO

NO but a major factor at grades

3,5,8

NO

Number of retakes

permittedNA 0 Multiple 5 0 0 1 NA 0 2 1 2 NA 2 0

State has guidelines for aid to failing

students

NOYES student

plans required

YES student plans

required

YES student plans

required

YES student support teams

required

NO

YES student plans

required in grades 3-4,

7-8

YES schoolwide

plans required

NO

YES schoolwide

plans required

YES students

failing state tests

receive remediation

YES student plans

requiredNO YES

YES student remediation programs required

Summer school required for

failing studentsNO NO YES NO NO NO YES NO NO NO NO YES NO NO

NO may be a part of remedial programs

State has guidelines for

summer schoolNO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YES YES NO NO

YES under developmen

t

State collects retention data

NO YES K-8 YES K-8 YES K-11YES not by

gradeYES 4-11 YES K-11

YES not by grade

NO YES K-11 NO YES K-11 YES K-8 YES K-11YES not by

grade

�� &

�� $7�� F�� C�� ;��

� ,�� +�� 5��+�� *� ��$7�� *� ��'�� 1�� C� �&�

� )�� 55%�� '��H��6�� @8 ��7%��5�� &��0�� 8�� 555��$%%%&�

��

Percent of Top Graduates Who Apply to In-State Colleges

Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, NCES CCD

45%43%

32%

27%

18%

Virginia North Carolina Florida Georgia Tennessee

� �� 5G%�� +�� ?�� $7��A��0��55G&�

� ��)�� A��0��/��$%%%� ��0�� )�� 6��)�� *��

Percent of Population with High School Diplomas, 2000U.S., Tennessee, and Other Southern States

*Population = Age 25 and older.Source: Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Fact Book, 2001.

84.1

86.6

84

83

82.6

81.7

80.8

80.3

79.9

79.2

78.7

77.5

United States

Virginia

Florida

South Carolina

Georgia

Arkansas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Tennessee

North Carolina

Kentucky

Alabama

0 20 40 60 80 100

� ��

�� 6�� 1�6�� 7��,�� D8�E�� 9��D)�E��(��A�� ;�� ,��

0�� 6��)�� 6��

� �� 55?�"� � ��3�� )��8�� :�� '�� 44��&�

� /��

�� )�� /��C��$%%%�� 2"��

� �� -"�� '�� $%%�'%$��"� �� '�� 4��555'$%%%��$%%%'%�� "�� -#�� (�� 2� �� #� ��:��4��55?'55��$%%%'%��0��C��$%%%&��)��

� /�� -�2� �� *�� )�� 6�� :�� -%%;� ��-%%%4��(�� .��,�� '��+��(�� +��

Percent of Population with Bachelor’s Degrees or Higher, 2000

U.S., Tennessee, and Other Southern States

*Population = Age 25 and older.Source: Southern Regional Education Board (SREB) Fact Book, 2001.

25.6

31.9

23.2

23.1

22.8

22.5

22

20.5

20.4

19

18.7

18.4

United States

Virginia

North Carolina

Georgia

Florida

Louisiana

Tennessee

Kentucky

Alabama

South Carolina

Mississippi

Arkansas

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

��

��(��+��,�$�� /��'�� G��

� ��6�� 2� �� 2�/�3��"��A��$%%�� 7�� 2� �� I �� 2� �� 3��0�� 0��( �� I �� @�� 2� �� )�� )�� 2'.�

� ,��55?��"�� 9�� %�� )�� +�� ;%�� 4�� +��

� )�� 0�� +�� <��.�� 4�=��4�9�� 4�8��4�>� ��4�?�� 4� �&�� +�� +�� (�� 4��(+��

,��

Changes in State General Operating Appropriations Per Full-Time-Equivalent Student, Public Four-Year Colleges and

Universities,1995-2000

Source: Southern Regional Educational Board Fact Book on Education 2000-2001. Changes represent dollar amount of changes per full-time-equivalent student adjusted for inflation.

40

1,135

1,059

669

451

167

26

-58

-105

-128

-131

-163

-234

-349

-906

-1,303

SREB States

Georgia

Virginia

Mississippi

Okalhoma

Arkansas

North Carolina

Kentucky

Louisiana

Texas

South Carolina

Maryland

West Virginia

Florida

Alabama

Tennessee

��

� � B��#�� B��

� ��"#�� 55?�*� �� $��6��

� ��,�� "��6��:�� A��$@��

�� ;�� 6��

,�� 6��)��:�� C ��0� �� D8�� '�� >��7�� E� ��0��6��0�� # �� 6��D� �� E

��

��

��

��

�� !�"�� #��$�� %��%��"��#��&��%��%�� $�� &��'�� (�� )�� *�� +��

��+�� &��$��

��

�� !��"��#$$%

��

,��+�� ,��

2�� 6�� ,�� )��)��

�� (+�� 4�� /�+�� ,�� ,�� $%�� 2�/�� 0��555&�

��

Tennessee Households Owning a Computer or Laptop

By Level of Education

Source: Tennessee Digital Divide, 2000

6.3%

23.9%

36.2%

50.3%

80%

Elementary Some High School

High School Graduate

Some College B.A. or Higher

��Tennessee Households Owning

a Computer or Laptop1994, 1997, 1998

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tennessee Regulatory Authority, May 2000

19.5

32.9

37.5

24.1

36.6

42.1

1994 1997 1998

TN U.S.

! ��

Technology in Education,Tennessee Students Per Computer

Top Five Ranked States Compared to Tennessee

Source: Governing, State and Local Source Book 2000 (one represents best, 50 represents worst)

State Students Per Computer Ranking

Wyoming 3.5 1

Nebraska 3.9 2

Kansas 4.1 3

North Dakota 4.2 Tied for 4

South Dakota 4.2 Tied for 4

Tennessee 6.7 42

Technology in Education,Students Per Internet-Connected Computer

Top Five Ranked States Compared to Tennessee

Source: Governing, State and Local Source Book 2000 (one represents best, 50 represents worst)

State

Students Per Internet-

Connected Computer

Rank

Delaware 5.8 1

Alaska 6 2

Nebraska 7.2 3

South Dakota 7.3 4

North Dakota 9.1 5

Tennessee 18.3 42

�� A)��$%%%&�

�� ,�� 1�� B�� ;�� C�� $%%%&��

� )��6��

� ��/��!��/��C��$%%%��$��7%�� ,��

� )�� ,��

��3�� ,�� )�� 3,)&��2� ��/�� 0��

�� "

�� 55�� ,��3,)6�� !!��"��#�"��"��$��%��"��!��&��D��)�� 6�� E

3�� 6�� ; �� &� ��4�� 4��4� �� (�� 4�� 4�� A��3,)��555&�

,�� A��)�� A)&�� 2� ��5%%��0��C��6�� 55?��#��'�(#!��#��)��A)�� ,�� '��A)��$%%%&�

��*��+��!��&��E�� A)� ��$%%%��

� )�� 55��4G�7��,��

� 0�� %�� A)��$%%%&�

1�� '� ��

Computer Ownership and Internet Access in Tennessee

Source: US Census Bureau, December 1998

37.5%

21.3%

42.1%

22.2%

Computer Ownership Internet Access

Tennessee US

Tennessee Households Owning a Computer or Laptop

By Income, By Year

Source: US Census Bureau 1998

9.414.4

30.9

41

67.6

18.8

26.7

49.6

66.1

77

21.7

28.3

52.8

67.4

84.7

Less than $15,000 $15,000-34,999 $35,000-49,999 $50,000-74,000 $75.000 and higher

1994 1997 1998

# ��

�� >G7�%%%�� >�7�%%%�� 4��55G��55?�A)��$%%%&�

<�� 3��)��)�� !

� �� >G7�%%%�� >�7�%%%�� >�7�%%%��>47�%%%��

� !�� ,��

� "� �� 6��)�� ')�� )�� ')�� "� �� $%�� 55G�

� 9�� "4###� ��4�� +�� "� ��)�� ')��

� < �� (�� 3�� C��55G��55?��$%��

� �� '� �� $?��55G��55?�

� ��'��

"�� -�)�� C�� ;�� ,&� �� '�� )�� *��+��,##@�� +�� +��--$�� +�� +��-#2�� 8��)�� ,�� )�� )�� ,))&�� ,�� &�� F�� )�� $��0��"��0�� 2� ��/�� ,� ��

�� $

��

% ��

�-%%$�� *�� 3��&�� &��

�� 0�� #� �� '� � �� #� �� '� � ��

�� *��4��+�� -%%$��)��0�� 554�� F'��/��!� �� 0�� #� �� (��/��

� ��0��

�� *�� +�� !

� ,�� B��

� 8�� 8��:� �� /�� 8:/ &��*� ��

� ,��

� 8��

)�� 0� ��6�� *�� 4��4� �� H�� 0�� <

� #��

� ��

�� TennCare/Medicaid Comparison

TN vs. SLC States (State Funds)Using Medicaid Plus Other Health Services as Base

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Mil

lio

ns

Southern Legislative Conference States Tennessee

Source: John Morgan, Comptroller of the Treasury, Tennessee

�� &

� #��

� )�� 0� ��6�� $%%%&�

2� �� +�� #�� B��

� 0� �� 0� �� 2� �� $7�� 0� ��6�� $%%%&�

� 1�� 0� ��6�� $%%%&�

� ,�� 6��1�� 6�� 8�� G%�� 6��;��>�4�� 55F��0� ��6�� $%%%&�

A��2� �� 0�� '�� ;�� 7�%%%�� 554��/�� <

� �� 7$�$4$� ��554��4?G�7?� ��555��4��

� G�� +��

Total TennCare Enrollees, 1999By Age Group

Source: Bureau of TennCare. *Note: Data reflects count as of December 1999

0-2045.2%

21-0ver 6554.8%

628,267

762,284

� �� 6�� *�� 55?�� *�� (�� *�� 0�� #� �� ;��555&�

� ��'�� 0�� +��

� ��

Bled

soe

Hamilt

on

Ben

ton

Lake

Obion

Gibson

Tipton

Lauderdale

Dyer

Weakley

Shelby

Crockett

Haywood

McNairy

Davidson

Knox

Fayette Hardeman

Madison

Chester

Henderson

Hardin

Dec

atur

Henry

Carroll

Stewart

Houston

Mont-gomery

Robertson

Hum

phre

ys Dickson

Che

atha

m

Hickman

Perry

Williamson

Sumner

Wilson

Rutherford

LewisMaury

Mar

shal

l

Wayne LawrenceGiles Lincoln

CoffeeBedford

Trous.

Moo

re

MarionFranklin

Bra

dley

McMinnGrundy Mei

gs

Polk

Macon

OvertonJackson

Smith

Clay Pickett

Fentress

DeKalb

Putnam

Cannon

Wash-ington

Warren

WhiteCumberland

RheaVan

Buren

Scott CampbellClaiborne Hancock

John

son

Hawkins

Carter

UnicoiGreene

Cocke

SevierBlount

Monroe

Loudon

Roane

Morgan

Anderson

Union

GraingerHamblen

Jefferson

Sullivan

Ham

ilton

TennCare Enrollment

Counties with Greater than Statewide Average (10%) of Population Covered by TennCare as an Uninsured or Uninsurable

(73 Counties)

Sequat.

/��<��)�� 0�� ,��A�� $%%%

Crockett

Rhea

Hamilt

on

Ben

ton

Lake

Obion

Gibson

Tipton

Lauderdale

Dyer

Weakley

Shelby

Haywood

McNairy

Davidson

Knox

Fayette Hardeman

Madison

Chester

Henderson

Hardin

Dec

atur

Henry

Carroll

Stewart

Houston

Mont-gomery

Robertson

Hum

phre

ys Dickson

Che

atha

m

Hickman

Perry

Williamson

Sumner

Wilson

Rutherford

LewisMaury

Mar

shal

l

Wayne LawrenceGiles Lincoln

CoffeeBedford

Trous.

Moo

re

MarionFranklin

Bra

dley

McMinn

Sequat.

Grundy Mei

gs

Polk

Macon

OvertonJackson

Smith

Clay Pickett

Fentress

DeKalb

Putnam

Cannon

Wash-ington

Warren

WhiteCumberland

Ble

dsoe

Van Buren


John

son

Hawkins

Carter

UnicoiGreene

Cocke

SevierBlount

Monroe

Loudon

Roane

Morgan

Anderson

UnionGrainger

Hamblen

Jefferson

Sullivan

Ham

ilton

TennCare Enrollment

Counties with Greater than Statewide Average (25%) of Population Covered by TennCare

(68 Counties)

�� #� �� 0�� ;��;��555&�

� ,��55?��%��6�� 7�� *�� 3��

��

�� 6�� ;�� B��

� ��&��

� )�� 47��

� ,��55?��)�� ')�� I��/�� "� ��

� ,��55?��F47��

,��

?��(:��

� �� 55?�� '� �� 7�7�� &�� 7��

� �� (�� 55?�)�� ')�� 5�� &��'� �� "� ��

,��=��$%%%�� (�� &��,��-��"�.��"�� 5?%��55G�� '� ��'� �� %��G�� "� �� 6�� D �� '� ��'� �� E��!�� '� ��'� �� 4�7��&�� '��

�� Tennessee Compared to the US

Percent Low-Birth-Weight Babies 1990-1997

Source: National KIDS COUNT Data Book, 2000

8.28.8

8.58.8 8.8 8.7 8.8 8.8

7 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Tennessee US

��

� )��)��(��0��:�� A�� '�� G7%��G�� >$G4�5%%&�� $�?��4�4��>7?�%%%&��)��(��0��:�� A��55?&�

� )�� $7%��&�� >�$�%%%��>�F�%%%� �� 7%%�� >$?�%%%� ��

A��'� ��'� �� ;�� <

� ��

� � ��

� ��

� ��

C�� '� ��

� A�� '� ��'� �� G�� $%%%�

� A�� *�� '� ��

� #��

.�� +��(+��(��++��!

� .��

� 2� ��

� 0��

*��)��7��

� �� 4%��

� ��%%�%%%�� 55G��4%��

� 4�%�� 4��

��

� 3�� 55?�� &�� !�� 6�� 55%��

� ��6�� 55?��F��

� ,��55?��4%7�� 7��5� ��

� #�� "� �� )�� ')��

�� <

� I ��

� ,�� '��

�� B��

� 1��%�� ,��55?��?4��7'�G��

� ��6�� 55��

� �� ?55��

A�� +�� 0��*��

� �� ;��

Source: W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999. (One represents best, 50 represents worst)

��

��

��

��

! ��

� �� G��&�� $%�

��

Lake

ObionWeakley Henry

DyerGibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hen

ders

on

Haywood

Tipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

De

catu

r

HardinWayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart

Montgomery Robertson

Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

Lawrence GilesLincoln

Moo

re

Bedford

Maury

Mar

shal

l

Williamson

Rutherford

Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

FranklinMarion

Ham

ilton

Coffee

Grundy

SequatchieB

leds

oe

Van

Buren

Cannon

WhiteDe Kalb

Putnam

SmithJackson

Macon Clay

Trousdale OvertonFentress

ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

CumberlandAnder

son

Roane

Knox

Loudon

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

ClaiborneHancock

HawkinsSullivan

Union

Grain

ger

Blount

Sevier

Jefferson

Cocke

GreeneHamblen

Wash-

ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

��

�� 6RXUFH��7HQQHVVHH�$GYLVRU\�&RPPLVVLRQ�RQ�,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO�5HODWLRQV

�� ;��)�� 0�� ,��A�� )0,A&�� $�"��%��"��"�!&��'�� D(��C�� E��D(��0� ��E� �� '� �� ",0�� ;�� 0�� "��%��"��"�!&�� 00H��

�� "

��

��

# ��

)�� 5?%�� 5F%�� 5G%��@�� 555&��,�� ;�� -

� ��

� 0� ��4�� '�� 4�� 300:��55G&�

� C�� +�� C��+�� 0�� 6��)�� 3�� )3�&��

� �� 4�� 4�� %$�� C�.��4�� 22��

� 6�� (��+�� (2 �$%%%&�

� �� (+�� $%$�� 4�� +��$-��

� �� %�� 4%�� >5�7%��?�� )�� G�� '�� "�� %�� >$FG��)��'�� ; ��)3��>G%��3!,(0��$%%%&�

� :�� D��E�� '��,�J�� 0� ��6�� 555&�

� 0��?%�� '� ��'�� B�� K�!�B��555&�

��

�� $

� :�� /��55G&�

� )�� +��+�� '�� '��+��

� )�� ;�� D�� ;�� 0�� 55F��>45�� E��/��55G&�

� �� $;�� "#�� +� �� 1��# �� )�� ; �� >�?7��>$��)��>��$%��6��)3��

� ,��$%%��., /�0123�� '��)��4�� '�� $G�� 2� ��/��;�� '��

� "��5%�� '��

� ��+�� (�� C�.��$�� .� ��

� �� 57%��0�� $%%%&�

� �� "#�� < ��2�� (�� ., /�0123� ��C��&�" �� C�� G�� '�� ,�� "��6��:�� A��$%%%&�

� #� �� '�� '�� )��K�@��555&�

� '�� (�� +�� D�� +��

% ��

� "� �� :� ��555&�

� / �� C�� *�� )�� !��K�/�� 555&�

� �� $%%��(�� G%�� *�� )�� +�� -;�� +��

� J�� 0� ��*�� +��

� /�� )�� ;�� ) �� 0� ��)� 0&�� #��8�� 1�� )3�� 0�� $%%%&�

*Wages of Tennessee Employees Covered By Unemployment Law

2000

Source: Tennessee Labor and Work Force Development, 2001. *Includes 98-99 percent of all Tennessee wage earners, including part-time workers and domestics. It does not include sole proprietors with no employees, and small farmers.

Under $15,000 49.0%

$15,000-$29,999 26.0%

$30,000-$44,999 14.0%

$45,000-$59,999 6.0%

$90,000 and Up 2.0%

$60,000-$74,999 2.0%$75,000-$89,999 1.0%

�� &

��

Lake

ObionWeakley Henry

DyerGibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hende

rson

Haywood

Tipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairyB

ento

nD

ecat

ur

HardinWayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart


Dickson

Hickman

Lewis


Moo

re

Bedford

Maury

Mar

shal

l

WilliamsonRutherford

Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

FranklinMarion

Ham

ilton

Coffee

Grundy

Sequatchie

Ble

dsoe

Van

Buren

Cannon

WhiteDe Kalb

Putnam

SmithJackson

Macon Clay

TrousdaleOverton

Fentress

ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

CumberlandAnder

son

Roane

Knox

Loudon

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

ClaiborneHancock

HawkinsSullivan

Union

Grain

ger

Blount

Sevier

Jefferson

Cocke

GreeneHamblen

Wash-

ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

��

��

Source: Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 2001

County County CountyR ank $ R ank $ R ank $

Anderson 10 $36,006 Hamilton 14 $34,836 M organ 75 $25,982Bedford 26 $32,347 Hancock 95 $18,529 O bion 30 $31,911Benton 73 $26,579 Hardeman 81 $25,337 O verton 82 $25,216Bledsoe 79 $25,815 Hardin 78 $25,852 Perry 64 $27,209Blount 12 $35,571 Hawkins 33 $31,286 P ickett 90 $22,027Bradley 17 $34,368 Haywood 83 $25,064 Polk 57 $27,703C ampbell 87 $23,314 Henderson 35 $30,665 Putnam 37 $30,570C annon 44 $30,078 Henry 65 $27,141 Rhea 60 $27,479C arro ll 45 $29,615 Hickman 43 $30,097 Roane 32 $31,448C arter 70 $26,736 Houston 76 $25,979 Robertson 7 $38,432C heatham 5 $41,036 Humphreys 36 $30,574 Rutherford 3 $43,488C hester 48 $29,196 Jackson 77 $25,871 Scott 93 $21,635C laiborne 85 $23,622 Jefferson 49 $29,128 Sequatchie 58 $27,542C lay 89 $22,055 Johnson 91 $21,932 Sevier 40 $30,189C ocke 86 $23,408 K nox 13 $35,408 Shelby 15 $34,583C offee 23 $32,889 Lake 92 $21,682 Smith 28 $32,077C rockett 54 $28,276 Lauderdale 74 $26,065 S tewart 52 $28,473C umberland 66 $27,132 Lawrence 47 $29,364 Sullivan 20 $33,199Davidson 6 $39,112 Lewis 80 $25,354 Sumner 4 $42,571Decatur 72 $26,581 Lincoln 41 $30,178 Tipton 24 $32,845Dekalb 55 $28,036 Loudon 16 $34,382 Trousdale 62 $27,319Dickson 18 $34,086 M cM inn 39 $30,352 Unicoi 50 $28,650Dyer 34 $31,092 M cN airy 69 $26,757 Union 71 $26,692Fayette 21 $33,062 M acon 61 $27,332 Van Buren 53 $28,361Fentress 94 $20,332 M adison 22 $32,909 W arren 42 $30,135Franklin 29 $32,015 M arion 51 $28,563 W ashington 25 $32,651Gibson 46 $29,587 M arshall 19 $33,399 W ayne 84 $25,053Giles 31 $31,855 M aury 8 $36,966 W eakley 38 $30,401Grainger 68 $26,848 M eigs 67 $26,931 W hite 63 $27,224Greene 56 $27,791 M onroe 59 $27,511 W illiamson 1 $63,959Grundy 88 $22,502 M ontgomery 11 $35,728 W ilson 2 $45,250Hamblen 27 $32,221 M oore 9 $36,958 S o u rce : U S C e n s u s B u re a u

1997 Es timate d M e dian



!� ��

Bled

soe

Dec

atur

GraingerHamblen

Ham

ilton

Ben

ton

Lake

Obion

Gibson

Tipton

Lauderdale

Dyer

Weakley

Shelby

Crockett

Haywood

McNairy

Davidson

Knox

Fayette Hardeman

Madison

Chester

Henderson

Hardin

Henry

Carroll

Stewart

Houston

Mont-gomery

Robertson

Hum

phre

ys Dickson

Che

atha

m

Hickman

Perry

Williamson

Sumner

Wilson

Rutherford

LewisMaury

Mar

shal

lWayne Lawrence

Giles Lincoln

CoffeeBedford

Trous.

Moo

re

MarionFranklin

Bra

dley

McMinnGrundy Mei

gs

Polk

Macon

OvertonJackson

Smith

Clay Pickett

Fentress

DeKalb

Putnam

Cannon

Wash-ington

Warren

WhiteCumberland

RheaVan

Buren


John

son

Hawkins

Carter

UnicoiGreene

Cocke

SevierBlount

Monroe

LoudonRoane

MorganAnders

onUnion

Sullivan

Ham

ilton

Counties with Greater than Statewide Average (15%)

of County Population in Poverty(58 Counties)

Sequat.

Jefferson

100% of Poverty:Individual = $8,501

Family of 4 = $17,029

Source: Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

�� !�

8�� 6�� B�� 5�� <

� �5�� ;��

� �5�� ;�� @�� $%%%&�

� ��6�� B�� ;��

:�� 4�� !

� �5�� ;��

� �?�� ;��

1��

8� �� 3�� -%�� 4�� $%��

� ��4�� 2�"�+�� 6�� B��

� 8�� $��

� "�� )))��

� ,��

� A��

8�� <

� 8 �� ;��

Source: W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999. BEP represents Tennessee’s Better Education Program.

��

� �� !�

� "��#��!�!��$��

� �!!��%�&��

� '��!��( )�*��+��)'��(��!��,��&��-��(��.��+��!��-

��!��

! ��

� 3 �� ;��

� � �� ;��

� �� E� �3�� &��4�9+�4� �9�� 6��;�� "�� 3��

� �� 6��(�� ,�� )��+�� /�� 8�� ;�� E��!

� 0�� '��

� 0�� (��

� 0�� '�� %��

� !��'�� $%%?�

/�� I��/��

)��6�� 7�7��&�� <

� $G��

� 44��

�� 24�22��

Source: W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999. PI stands for Personal Incom. (One represents best, 50 represents worst)

��

�� !"�#$$% &$��

�� !"��#$$' &%��

�� !"�#$$%� ��('��

��)�� *�) +"�#$$% &,��

��*�)��-�.�� )+ &&��

�� &&��

�� !

�� 2�/��/��8�� 0�� /�� <

� )�� ;�� >$�%%%��>4�%%%��'� ��

� 3��;�

� "� �� ;�� ;��>4%��

� "� ��;��*�� *� ��

� )��;� ��;�� *�� *� ��

� )��;��

Average Earnings for IndividualsComparison of Tennessee and Bordering States, and U.S.

Source: Governing Source Book 2000

$33,097

$32,851

$32,818

$29,364

$29,271

$29,010

$28,047

$27,194

$25,334

$25,108

United States

Virginia

Georgia

Tennessee

North Carolina

Missouri

Alabama

Kentucky

Arkansas

Mississippi

Source: W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999. (One represents best, 50 represents worst)

��

��

!"� ��"��#$�%&&' ()��

!�* �� +��#��,��-��.

%&&�*%&&� /��

%&&�*%&&& )0��

��1��$�%&&& )��

��1��,��-��$�%&&�*&& �� ()��

� )�� 8�� 0�� $%%�&�

" ��6�� ;�� '�� ;�� H�� "��

��

!! ��

Where Your State Tax Dollar Comes From

Source: 2000-2001 Budget Summary, State of Tennessee 101st General Assembly

Sales Tax57.6%

2.0%

Other5.1%

Insurance & Banking4.0%

Franchise & Excise12.1%

4.0%Income & Inheritance

3.0%

Motor Fuel9.1%

Motor Vehicle3.0%

Tobacco & Alcoholic Beverages

Gross Receipts and Privilege

Where Your State Tax Dollar Goes

Source: 2000-2001 Budget Summary 101st General Assembly

Education43.0%

Resources & Regulation3.0%

Counties and Cities8.0%

Transportation8.0%

10.0%General Government

3.0%

24.0%

1.0%Business & Economic Development

Health and Human ServicesLaw, Safety and Corrections

�� !"

How Most States Fund Government

1999

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Personal Income34.5%Property

2.3%Corporate Income

6.1%

Other9.1%

Selective Sales14.8%

General Sales33.2%

"��;�� ;�� 8�� ;�� '��<�� ;��;�� ;�� ;��

��=��$%%�� B �� ;�� 555�� '�� ;�� *�� '��;�� '��;��

�� <��'�� ;��6�� ;�� ;��

� 8��,###4�� $;�� +�� 0��=��$G��$%%��G�� 555�� >��4F%� ��;�� $%%%��4%��

State Amount

United States 1,921.46Kentucky 1,903.77North Carolina 1,890.36Arkansas 1,821.86Virginia 1,786.83Mississippi 1,656.30Georgia 1,650.44Missouri 1,531.94Alabama 1,447.78Tennessee 1,360.38

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Per Capita Tax Loads

!# ��

��%��%$��@��)�� +�� 3�� "� �� B�� G%��

B��-%,#�4�� 3�� +�� "��"��,,� �� (��6�� ;��

,�*� � �� *� �� @��)��54%�� ;�� *� �� ;��*��/��/��0�� 9�� =� ��B��.�� !��5?��0��5?7��C��554&�� +��

,��5G�� ;��;�� / �� 6��

� @��!��)�;��

� @��3��#�"��;��

� @�� /��*� �� ;��

:�� 6��;�� <��

1��;�� ;��8�� ;�� 2��6��;��;�� ,�� +��;"�� / �� ;��

,�� ;��6��;��

� "� ��;� �� ;��;��

��"�#��

�� !$

��*� �� &��3��<��;��

/��;�� ;�� ;��9�� 3�� +�� D�>� ��( �� ;�� ;��

� �� ;�� / ��#�� E� �� 2#�� 4�� B�� ;��:�� ;�� 6�� :�� '� �� +��

� /��

� !�� 4�� A�� +�� (��+�� / �� B�� 1�� 6�� +�� "��'#��

��,�� 0�� ;�� 3��

� C��;��

� ��2�/��0�� ,�� ;��

� ��;�� ;��

/ ��,�� ;�� 4��+�� +��

!% ��

��C��*� � �� B��;��'��'��(�� B�� ;�� *� ��

� 1�� +��+��

9�� ;�� ;��<�� >�%�%%%�� >��%%%� ��;�� >�%%�%%%�� >7�%%%� ��;��8�� >�%�%%%��%�� ;��7�� 2�� ;��>��%%%��>�%�%%%�� &��)��

6��"�� ;�� )�� ;�� +��;�� ;��;�� 6��

�� 4��4�� 4�� ,��

�� ;�� 9��

� &��-� �� ;��

� &��,��;�� 9�� ;�� .��)��;�� @�� 3��0�� ;�� ;��I �� 6��

� &��2��;�� 9�� 1��3��0�� ;�� @�� ;��

� )�� ;��&��$�

Shrinking Sales Tax BaseSales Tax Base as a Percent of Personal Income

Source: W.F. Fox, Center for Business and Economic Research, UT Knoxville, September 1999

58.69%

42.12%

1979 1997

��

��

��

��

��

��!&

Map 1. Combined State and Local Option Sales Tax Rates for the Counties Bordering Tennessee

Lake Obion

WeakleyHenry

Dyer

Gibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison Henderson

HaywoodTipton

ShelbyFayette Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

r

HardinWayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart

MontgomeryRobertson

Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

Lawrence

Giles Lincoln

Moo

re

BedfordMaury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion Ham

ilton

CoffeeGrundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soeVan

BurenCannon

WhiteDe Kalb

PutnamSmith

Jackson

Macon Clay

Trousdale Overton FentressScott

Pickett

Campbell

Morgan

Cumberland Anderso

n

Roane

Knox

Loudon Blount

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

Claiborne HancockHawkins

Sullivan

Union

Grainger

Sevier

JeffersonCocke

GreeneHamblenWash-ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

DeSoto Marshall BentonTippah

Alcorn

Tis

ho

min

go Lauderdale Limestone Madison Jackson

Dad

e

Walker

Catoosa

Whitfield

Murray Fannin

Cherokee

GrahamSwain

Haywood

MadisonYancey

MitchellAvery

Watauga

AsheGrayson

WashingtonScottLeeBellWhitleyMcCreary

Wayne

ClintonCumber-

landMonroeAllen

SimpsonLogan

ToddChristianTrigg

CallowayGravesHickman

Fulton

Pemiscot

Mississippi

Crittendon

6.0%

4.5%7.5%

City of Florence Only

6.0% 5.0%4.5%

City ofHuntsville Only

OutsideCity of

Huntsville Only

7.0%

7.0% 6.0%

7.0%

6.0%

6.0%

6.0%

6.0%6.0%

6.0%

6.0%6.0%

6.0%

6.0%

6.0%6.0%

4.5%6.0%

6.0% 6.0%6.0%

6.0% 6.0% 6.0%

6.0%6.0%

6.0% 6.0%

6.0%6.0% 6.0%

6.0%6.0% 6.0%

5.475%

1.50%

6.125%

Osceola

6.875%

6.125%

West Memphis

8.25%8.50%8.75% 8.50% 8.25%8.75%

8.75%

8.75%

8.25%

8.25%

8.25%7.75%

8.25%Chattanooga 8.25%

8.25%

8.75%Lake City

8.25%8.75%

8.25%

8.75%

8.25%8.50% 8.75%8.25%

8.75%

8.25%8.25%8.25%

8.75%

8.25%Grand

Junction8.25%8.00% 8.25%

8.25%

8.25%

8.75%

8.75%

7.50%

8.25%Sweetwater

8.0%

8.50%

8.75%

8.00%8.75%

8.25%Kingsport8.50%

8.50%

7.0%7.0% 7.0%

7.0%7.0%

7.0

%

4.0% Alabama

7.0% Mississippi

5.125% Arkansas

State RateState Rate

4.5%4.5%

4.5%

Virginia

3.5%Kentucky6.0% North Carolina

4.0%

6.0% Tennessee

4.225% Missouri

4.0% Georgia

8.50%

Bly

thev

ille

6.375%

Outside City of Florence Only

Source: Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relation. Rates as of May 1, 2001

"��

��

��

��

��

��

Lake Obion

WeakleyHenry

DyerGibson

Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison Hende

rson

HaywoodTipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairyB

ento

nD

ecat

ur

Hardin 8.50%

Wayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart

MontgomeryRobertson

Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

LawrenceGiles Lincoln

Moo

re

BedfordMaury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion Ham

ilton

CoffeeGrundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soeVan

BurenCannon

WhiteDeKalb

PutnamSmith

Jackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

Cumberland Anderso

n

Roane

Knox

Loudon Blount

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

Claiborne HancockHawkins

Sullivan

Union

Grainger

Sevier

JeffersonCocke

GreeneHamblenWash-ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

DeSoto Marshall Benton

Tippah

Alcorn

Tis

ho

min

go Lauderdale Limestone Madison Jackson

Dad

e

Walker

Catoosa

Whitf

ield

Murray Fannin

Cherokee

GrahamSwain

Haywood

MadisonYancey

MitchellAvery

Watauga

AsheGrayson


Wayne

Clinton

Cumberland

MonroeAllenSimpsonLoganTodd

Christian

Trigg

Calloway

GravesHickman

Fulton

Pemiscot

Mississippi

Crittendon

6.0%

4.5%7.5%‘

City of Florence‘

6.0% 4.5%

5.0%7.5%

City ofHuntsville

OutsideCity of

Huntsville

3.0%

3.0% 2.0%

3.0%

3.0%

2.0%

2.0%2.0%

2.0%2.0%

2.0%2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%2.0%

4.0%0%

0%0% 0%

0% 0% 0% 0%0%

0% 0%0% 0% 0%

0%0% 0%

2.475%

6.625%

7.875

Blytheville& Osceola

6.875%

7.875%

West Memphis

8.25%8.50%8.75% 8.50% 8.25%8.75%

8.75%

8.75%

8.25%

8.25%

8.25%7.75%

8.25% Chattanooga 8.25%

8.25%

6.50%Lake City

8.25%7.00%

8.25%

8.75%

8.25%8.50% 8.758.25%

8.25%

8.25%8.25%8.25%

8.75%

8.25%Grand Junction825% 8.00% 8.25%

8.25%

8.25%

8.50%

8.50%

7.50

8.25%Sweetwater8.00%

8.50%

2.75%

8.00% 8.75%

2.00%

8.25%Kingsport 8.50

%

8.50%

7.0%7.0%

7.0% 7.0% 7.0%

7.0

%

Map 2: State and Local Option Sales Rates on GroceriesTennessee and Out-of-State Border Counties

4.0%

4.0%4.0%

4.0% Alabama

7.0% Mississippi

5.125% Arkansas


Virginia3.0%Kentucky0.0%

North Carolina0.0%

6.0% Tennessee

1.225% Missouri

0.0% GeorgiaSource: Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Rates as of May 1, 2001

��

��

��

��

��

��"�

Lake Obion

Weakley

Henry

Dyer Gibson

Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hende

rso

n

HaywoodTipton

Shelby Fayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

r

Hardin Wayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart


Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

LawrenceGiles Lincoln M

oore

BedfordMaury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion Ham

ilton

CoffeeGrundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soeVan

Buren

CannonWhite

De Kalb

PutnamSmith

Jackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

Cumberland Anderso

n

Roane

Knox

Loudon Blount

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

Claiborne HancockHawkins Sullivan

Union

Grainger

Sevier

JeffersonCocke

GreeneHamblen

Wash-ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

De Soto Marshall Benton

Tippah

Alcorn

Tis

ho

min

go

Lauderdale Limestone Madison Jackson

Dad

e

Walker

Catoosa

Whitf

ield

Murray Fannin

Cherokee

GrahamSwain

Haywood

MadisonYancey

Mitchell Avery

Watauga

AsheGrayson


Wayne

Clinton

Cumberland

MonroeAllenSimpson

LoganTodd

Christian

Trigg

Calloway

GravesHickman

Fulton

Pemiscot

Mississippi

Crittendon

$0.18

$0.075

$0.075

$0.216

$0.164

$0.1705

$0.187

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214$0.214 0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.184

Map 3. State Tax on Gasoline in Tennessee andOut-of-State Border Counties

$0.175

$0.18 Alabama

$0.184 Mississippi

$0.187 Arkansas


Virginia$0.175

Kentucky$0.164

North Carolina$0.216

$0.214 Tennessee

$0.1705 Missouri

$0.075 Georgia

$0.18 $0.18 $0.18

$0.187

$0.075$0.075

$0.075

$0.075

$0.164$0.164 $0.164

$0.164 $0.164 $0.164$0.164

$0.164$0.164 $0.164

$0.164 $0.164 $0.164 $0.164$0.164 $0.164

$0.184$0.184

$0.184

$0.1

8 4

$ 0.1

8 4

$0.216

$0.216

$0.216$0.216

$0.216

$0.216$0.216

$0.216

$0.216

$0.175

$0.175$0.175

$0.214 $0.214 $0.214 $0.214

$0.214

$0.214$0.214 $0.214$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

$0.214$0.214$0.214$0.214$0.214$0.214

$0.214$0.214

$0.214$0.214

$0.214 $0.214

$0.214

$0.214$0.214

$0.214

$0.214$0.214

$0.214

$0.214

Georgia levies a 3% tax on total retail sale price of gasoline. Rates include nominal environmental assurance fees except for Georgia.


"��

��

��

��

��

��

Lake Obion

Weakley

Henry

Dyer Gibson

Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hende

rson

HaywoodTipton

Shelby Fayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

r

Hardin Wayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart


Dickson

Hickman

Lewis

LawrenceGiles Lincoln M

oore

BedfordMaury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion Ham

ilton

CoffeeGrundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soeVan

Buren

CannonWhite

De Kalb

PutnamSmith

Jackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

Cumberland Anderson

Roane

Knox

Loudon Blount

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

Claiborne HancockHawkins Sullivan

Union

Grainger

Sevier

JeffersonCocke

GreeneHamblen

Wash-ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

De Soto Marshall Benton

Tippah

Alcorn

Tis

ho

min

go

Lauderdale Limestone Madison Jackson

Dad

e

Walker

Catoosa

Whitfield

Murray Fannin

Cherokee

GrahamSwain

Haywood

MadisonYancey

Mitchell Avery

Watauga

AsheGrayson


Wayne

Clinton

Cumberland

MonroeAllenSimpson

LoganTodd

Christian

Trigg

Calloway

GravesHickman

Fulton

Pemiscot

Mississippi

Crittendon

Map 4. All States Bordering Tennessee Have Graduated Personal Income Taxes

2.0%-5.0%/3 brackets Alabama

3.0%-5.0%/3 brackets Mississippi

1.0%-7.0%/6 brackets Arkansas

State Graduated Tax Rate Range/Number BracketsState Graduated Tax Rate Range/Number Brackets

Virginia2.0%-5.75%/4 brackets

Kentucky2.0%-6.0%/5 brackets

North Carolina6.0%-7.75%/3 brackets

N/A Tennessee

1.5%-6.0%/10 brackets Missouri

1.0%-6.0%/6 brackets Georgia


�� "

A�� ;�� 6�� *�� ;��(��'�� /��0�� =��$%%�� #��$%%�� *�� ;�

"�� ;� �� ;�� ;�� '�� ;��&�� )�� ;�� 77�� #��$%%��0 � B�� ;�� '�� ;��

��*�� ;�� /C�5$%9(C��5�?&��;��,�� ;�� ;�� B��

/�� /C��5$%9(C��5�?� �� <

� F��(��,��;��

� !�� ;��

� 2� ��;��G��

� @�� '�� ;�� ;��&�

� )��'�� ;�

� �� 4�7��F��

� >�?�%%%�;�� ;��>4F�%%%��

� >$F��%%�;��

� >$�7%%��

� " ��;�� '��'�� ;�� +�� )@,&�� ;��

� �� ;��

� 3��'�� ;��

� 0�� ;� �&��;�� F��F�7��

� :�� ;�� ;��

1�� ;�� 7G��;�� ;�� +�� ;��;�� ;��;��#�� ;��

"! ��

�� ; �� ;��

� �� +�� ;�� ;��

� �� +�� ,�� ;��

� �� ! �� ;�� :��@� BB� �� ;� ��

�� ;�� ,�� ;��;�� *� �� ;��

)�� /C��5$%9(C��5�?�� ;�� 77�� ;�� /C��5$%9(C�5�?� �" �� F��,��+�� 75&�G%��

Comparison of Proposed Legislation vs. Current Sales Tax

Impact on Various Income Groups

Source: Tax Reform Study, Women’s Institute for Policy Studies, Vanderbilt University "Tax Reform Study 2001."

Family Type and IncomePercent of Income

Paid in TaxesPercent of Income

Paid in TaxesPercent of Income

Paid in Taxes

Current Sales Tax Structure

Sales and Services

Previously Proposed

Rochelle/Head/Elsea Income Tax Bill

Single Female-Headed Household Earning $10,000 7.14% 8.94% 4.2%

Single Female-Headed Household Earning $17,000 5.99% 7.44% 3.52%

Husband/Wife Earning $17,000

6.36% 7.81% 3.67%

Husband/Wife Earning $35,000

4.19% 4.98% 2.56%

Husband/Wife Earning $44,000 4.77% 5.65% 2.41%



��

��

��

��

��

��""

Percent of Registered Voters in Support of an Income Tax (SB 1920/HB 1948)Statewide Average in Support: 58%

Citizens for Fair Taxes Poll: May 5-11, 2001

Lake

ObionWeakley Henry

DyerGibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison Hender

son

HaywoodTipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

rHardin

Wayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart

Montgomery

Robertson

Dickson

Hickman

Lewis


Moo

re

Bedford

Maury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion Ham

ilton

Coffee

Grundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soe

VanBuren

Cannon

WhiteDe Kalb

Putnam

SmithJackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

CumberlandAnder

son

Roane

Knox

Loudon

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

ClaiborneHancock

HawkinsSullivan

Union

Grain

ger

Blount

Sevier

Jefferson

Cocke

Greene

Hamblen

Wash-

ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

58%

62%

54%

46%

55%57%

59%

59%60%

64%

Percent of Registered Voters Supporting the Reform Package:- Income Tax (SB1920/HB1948) - Performance Based Budgeting

- Governor’s Reading Initiative - Mandatory Tax Rebate Requirements

Statewide Average in Support: 62%

Lake

ObionWeakley Henry

DyerGibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hende

rson

HaywoodTipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

r

HardinWayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart


Dickson

Hickman

Lewis


Moo

re

Bedford

Maury

Mar

shal

l


Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin MarionHamilton

CoffeeGrundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soe

VanBuren

Cannon

WhiteDe Kalb

Putnam

SmithJackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

CumberlandAnder

son

RoaneKnox

Loudon

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

ClaiborneHancock

HawkinsSullivan

Union

Grain

ger

BlountSevier

Jefferson

Cocke

Greene

Hamblen

Wash-ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

62%

73%

61%

57%

62% 54%

58%

59%

64%

62%

"#��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !�"��#$%�� !�"��#$%&'� � �� (&'� � �� (

Lake

ObionWeakley Henry

DyerGibson Carroll

Lauderdale Crockett

Madison

Hende

rson

Haywood

Tipton

ShelbyFayette

Hardeman

Chester

McNairy

Ben

ton

Dec

atu

r

HardinWayne

Perry

Humphreys

Houston

Stewart


Dickson

Hickman

Lewis


Moo

re

Bedford

Maury

Mar

shal

l

Williamson

Rutherford

Che

atha

m

Davidson

Sumner

Wilson

Franklin Marion

Ham

ilton

Coffee

Grundy

Sequatchie

Bled

soe

Van

Buren

Cannon

WhiteDe Kalb

Putnam

SmithJackson

Macon Clay


ScottPickett

Campbell

Morgan

CumberlandAnder

son

Roane

Knox

Loudon

Monroe

PolkBradley

McMinn

Rhea

Mei

gs

ClaiborneHancock

HawkinsSullivan

Union

Grain

ger

Blount

Sevier

Jefferson

Cocke

GreeneHamblen

Wash-

ington

John

son

Carter

Unicoi

Warren

��

��

Sources: Data – Income tax simulations by Department of Revenue using 1999 IRS returns and estimates by Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations on impact of other elements of SB 1920.

Cartography – Legislative Information Services

�� "$

Percent of Households Paying Less in Taxes Under ProposedSB1920/HB1948 Tax Reform Legislation

��/��<�/��7F�

County

Percent of Households Paying Less

in Taxes County


in Taxes County


in Taxes Anderson 64% Hamilton 63% Moore 67% Bedford 69% Hancock 89% Morgan 78% Benton 78% Hardeman 80% Obion 67% Bledsoe 80% Hardin 79% Overton 81% Blount 62% Hawkins 69% Perry 77% Bradley 67% Haywood 82% Pickett 87% Campbell 81% Henderson 71% Polk 74% Cannon 72% Henry 76% Putnam 71% Carroll 72% Hickman 72% Rhea 71% Carter 77% Houston 76% Roane 66% Cheatham 57% Humphreys 69% Robertson 60% Chester 72% Jackson 85% Rutherford 55% Claiborne 82% Jefferson 72% Scott 87% Clay 88% Johnson 81% Sequatchie 73% Cocke 83% Knox 61% Sevier 75% Coffee 69% Lake 82% Shelby 64% Crockett 76% Lauderdale 78% Smith 68% Cumberland 75% Lawrence 75% Stewart 71% Davidson 57% Lewis 78% Sullivan 67% Decatur 77% Lincoln 70% Sumner 58% DeKalb 73% Loudon 60% Tipton 64% Dickson 64% Macon 76% Trousdale 72% Dyer 69% Madison 66% Unicoi 72% Fayette 67% Marion 70% Union 80% Fentress 92% Marshall 64% Van Buren 77% Franklin 68% Maury 61% Warren 72% Gibson 71% McMinn 69% Washington 67% Giles 68% McNairy 76% Wayne 83% Grainger 78% Meigs 74% Weakley 72% Greene 73% Monroe 75% White 77% Grundy 87% Montgomery 67% Williamson 46% Hamblen 68% Wilson 54%

Average Statewide Households Paying Less in Taxes: 65%

"% ��

��$��%��&��'��&�� '��(&��)��

Argument for Reform from an Unlikely Source��

�� !�� "��

�� #��$�� %�� &�� &�� $��

' �� ' �� !�� (��#)*+��, - �� .� �� $�� / ��

$�� !�� $� �� '��

�� ! �� %��

�� 0��

�� 0��

��)�, 1��- ��

0�� 2��

.�� 3�� (��

�� 4��*5��

��

�� "&

��

#� ��

�� 4��

�� (�� 0�� +�� +��" �� ' ��

�� !

� �5��

� �?�� ;��

� 7%�� '��

Data Table on Statistics for Children and Youth

Data Table on Statistics for Children and Youth

Taken from KIDS COUNT Data for 1997,1998, 1999.

Source: KIDS COUNT, State of the Child in Tennessee, 2000. *Percentage of Children in Poverty, 1997, **Population through age 19.

Indicator Units Statewide Davidson Hamilton Knox Shelby

Teen Pregnancy Rate

per thousand 48.2 58.9 49.8 31.5 75.2

Infant Mortality per thousand 8.2 8 7.3 5.3 13.4

Percent Low-Birth-Weight

Babiespercentage 9.1 9.8 9.6 9 11.3

*Percent of Children Below the Poverty Line

percentage 18.9 18.6 18.8 16.2 22.1

Child Abuse and Neglect Rate per thousand 6.9 7.1 6.2 6.8 7.4

**Population of Children in

Tennessee, 19991,533,309 150,326 81,263 99,059 282,539

�� (

�� #�

� �F�� $7��

� �� 6��

� 7%�� 5��

� �7�� D0�� 0� ��E� ��;�

� �4�� '� ��

� �5�� ;��

<��"#��!

� $G��;��)3��

� 4�� 9�� ;�� '��

:�� 6�� '��

Dollars Spent per Child Under Age 6

Source: National Center for Children in Poverty, 2000. New Jersey classifies funding information differently from other states.

More than $200Between $100 and

$200Between $20 and $100 Between $0 and $20 No Funds

California Alaska Arizona Idaho Alabama

District of Columbia Connecticut Arkansas Louisiana Mississippi

Georgia Delaware Colorado Montana South Dakota

Massachusetts Florida Hawaii Nebraska Utah

North Carolina Illinois Indiana Nevada Wyoming

Oklahoma Kentucky Iowa New Hampshire

Minnesota Kansas North Dakota

Missouri Maine Pennsylvania

Ohio Maryland Tennessee

Oregon Michigan

Rhode Island New Mexico

South Carolina New York

Texas Vermont

Wisconsin Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

# ��

"�� -��2�� *��

A�� *�� ;�� '�� *��&��<

� D/��/��E�� *� ��

� !��

� ! � �� *� ��*��9��

� !�� *� �� 0��9#� ��

��6�� '� ��

�� #

#��)��@��K�@��#��555&��/��/��,��,�� )��)�� 0� ��<�/��"�� &��!�� :��2��,�� "�� 0�

)��(��0��:�� A��55?�� &��!)� ��0��"�%��%��.��"��!��'�#�&��"��1�'�#�&��/0�'2��2��3"�/3��I��$$$��A�� # ��<99��9�

)�� 8��0�� $%%�&�� C�� #� �

C�� $%%%&��/&&��"��&�%��%��/��.��%��3��"�� 0��<99�� 9��9�� 9 ��;��-��L$%

C��!��/�� 2�/�� !��$%%%&��55?'$%%?�=��1�� C� ��33#(��!��#�!��4#��!)��"�� 0�

C��.��0�;��.��/��A��K��/��$%%%&��"��,��5&#3��!��&��%��0��"-��3"��!��)��3��)��$��0��"��0�� #��8�� 0��/��:�� :�� @��#��2� �� "�� 0��$��9��M��

0� ��6�� $%%%&��%��*��"�!&��$��"�!&��"��6�"�� 0��"��($77��63"�!&��&�%��6��7��7&��6��6"��6

0�� .��8��:��A��.��/�� K�#�!��/��$%%%&��.��*��'��)2�!��8��*��/%%!#��<��!��8��"��"��&��&��"��6�=� ��0��:��A��/�� "�� 0�

0��$%%%&��3"��&��2��&$��5��#�"��3�� 3�

0�� 8�� $%%%&�� 9��/��#�!��!�(��2�(��&�%��"��"�� 0�

��K��.��55?&�� &��!��&�� #�&��%��"�!&��*��'��2��,�� <99�� 9��9��7��

8�� /�� 0��3�� 0��8�� /�� :�� /�� :��/��<�/��H��557'5F��<99��9�� 9��9��M ��

8�� "��$%%��6�4#�!��)��#�� $�/��!��3�$��&��&��&��%��"��I��$%��3��G��C��# �

8��8;�� C��$%%%&��#��&� ��-�� $��"��/��#�!��#��)��%��!!��%��"��!!��&��3��H��3H�

��8�� 0�� 555&��:��2��&�#��#��;� <<=��9��9��K��5?��

� �B�� 0�/��!�B��8��555&��'��)��(��.��0��&>��6�0��C��:�� :� �� "�� 0�

#! ��

��;��"��C��#��0�� I��I ��C�C��55?&�� !�� 6�:�� '��(��/�� 0��C�� 8�� A��2� �� .��;� ��.��;� ��3�

@�� /��#��B ��/��$%%%&��?�,�3�!��#�3��"�� 0�

@�� $%%%�/��!��/��C��$%%%&��'��%��3��'��@�3�� 72�(��&$��"�� 0��<99�� 9��9��

@�� A��=��=��.�� ;��555&��,��(!�)��2��.�� #�!�'��)��-3!��0��C��:�� :� �� "�� 0�

,��=��55?&��"��'��3��%�/&��$�"��(��3��%�0��"��5&#3��3�� 0��( ��8�� :�� /��=��0)

,�� "��6��:�� A��55?&��8�&��/��#�!� ��!��&�8�!��5��>)��!!��&�2��%�� #!!�� #!!��5�(!�)�&�8��&�.��$�2��3"��%6�"�� 0�

,�� "��6��:�� A��$%%%&��"��#��%�.��<�0��"!��"��"��#��%�.��"��"�� 0�� 9��

!��A�,��/�� /��555&��/��%�53��3��3��!��&��3��3��&��/%%�3�-��"��6�6�,�>��8��6��2��,�� "�� 0�

# 0��,��$%%%&��%��"��#�"��0��( ��30��<99�� 9/��/��M$��

3�� 0��0� �� :��$%%%&��8�(��&��3��6�3��H��3H�

3�� 0��0� �� :��55F&�� #�$�/��3�*��#��'��4�'7$��3�H��3H�

3�� 0��8�� /�� 555&��!�/��%�5&#3��!�'�� <<=.��2�(��"�� 0�

3�� 0��( ��8�� :�� 55G&�� <<A��/��8��"��3��"�� 0�

3�� 0��( ��8�� :�� $%%%&��8��#��(��$�"��>)��2�(��&�%��0��"��5&#3��/��=��0��

3�� ,�� ! ��$%%%&�� 3��"��$��3��!�5&#3��6�"�� 0��<99�� 9��9��

3�� !��,��(�� 0�� $%%%&��#��%�2��3"��6�"�� 0��<99�� 9�� '� ;9��

:� ��"��A�� !��!�� ;��.��:��.��555&��"��!��(�3��%�.�!%��2�%��"��3��%��!��8��"�� !��6�0��C��:�� :� �� "�� 0�

A��0��55G&��"��3��!��3�$�"�� 3�!��0��"��5&#3��"�� '�� 0��9�� 90)890)8�%%�

A��$%%%�6+.")�2#��!�8��B$�"��&�%��5��)��/3��2#��!�5&#3�-��6�"�� 0�

�� #"

/��)��55G&��0� ��6�� "��0��"��%�'��)��/��3��'��)�8��-��"�� 0�

/��A� ��8�� C��$%%�&�� 3��0��"��5&#3��)��@)�

/��A� ��8�� C��$%%%&�� 3#!�)��!��!!��&��$�."��25��&6�)��@)��$%%%��<99��9�� 9C��$%%%9��

/��A� ��8�� C��$%%%&��3"��/!!��&��2��&��)��@)��<99��9��9��9��9��9�� )��0� ��

/�� $%%%&��:��0��/��5&#3��A ��I)��<99�� 9 ��-,��, L�$��

��0�� 0� ��H��$%%%&��$�"��%��"��"�!&��6�3�� 3�

�� 8�� 0�� $%%�&��<99��9��9��;M ��

�� (��$%%%&��*��"�!&�0��!�"��#��3��'��6��0��C��3�� 3��<99��9��9��9�

�� (��$%%%&��&��,��-��"-.��"�-��>��6�3�� 3�

��A��)�� $%%%&��*��!��&�6�3�� 3�

��/��C��8�� $%%%&��3�5&#3��'��-�� 63�� 3�

��0��C��$%%%&��&��!!��'��3��3��H��3H�

��0��C��$%%%&��&��#&��/�&��3��H��3H�

2�/��0��C��$%%%&��3!#&��%�&��3��!��%�5��$�8��3"��"�� 0��<99��9�� 9��9�� 9�$%'74F9�$%'74F��

2�/��0��C��$%%%&��5&#3��!�/��%��"��'�(#!��C��&��)��"�� 0�

2�/�� 0��3�� ,�� )�� $%%%&�� !!��"��#�"��"��"�� 0�

2�/�� 0��1�� :�� 555&��/��3�*��%�3��$�"��"��%��%��3"��!��)�.��"�� 0��<99��9A��9 ��9 ��

2�/�� 8�� $%%%&��&��%�5&#3�� <<<��&��"�� 0�

2�/�� (�� 2�� 555&��0��$ <<<�0��"�(2��0��2�3��&�/��#�!�0��"��%�AA6=�'��3��6�"�� 0��<99��9��9��%%'�G��

2�/��3��"��A��$%%�&��(��!�'#>!�3�� !!��2��3��H��3H��<99��9��9��9��9�� 9��M��

## ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� #$

�� !��"�� #��$�%��&��

Documents

I listened to the outcry against tax reform, ... And as someone concerned about and committed to the future of ... Inadequate services have the potential to cause