senate idc dream act

7/29/2019 Senate IDC Dream Act

1/14

A Proposal for Extending Access to Higher Education

for all in New York State:

The DREAM Big Act

January 2013


2/14

In our modern economy, access to education after high school has become critical. Individualswho obtain any degree beyond a high school diploma earn more in salaries and wages onaveragei. At the same time that getting a degree has become more important, the cost of gettingsuch a degree has increased dramatically, vastly outpacing regular inflation ii, making it harder forfamilies to pay for higher education without assistance. An increasing number of families andstudents rely on access to loans and grants to be able to afford a higher education. New York

State has implemented a number of programs to give financial assistance to its residents,administered by the New York State Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC). The mostimportant of the college assistance programs created by New York is the Tuition AssistanceProgram (TAP), which provides grants to New York residents attending in-state institutions ofhigher learning. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2012-13, the Enacted State Budget set aside 877 milliondollars for the TAP program, which was up from the 873 million dollars spent in the FY 2011-2012iii. According to the Division of Budget (DOB), this increase in TAP spending is the resultof higher levels of student enrollment. DOB also projects significant increases in TAP spendingin the next few years iv.

While New York State continues its recovery from the lean and difficult years following the

recession, we still face a number of significant challenges, challenges made more difficult by therecent damages caused by Hurricane Sandy and uncertainty about federal support for keyprograms and assistance. Given the financial challenges posed by the recession and most recentlyby the damages caused by Hurricane Sandy, it is more critical than ever that we think aheadabout how New York will finance aid for higher education in New York. The IndependentDemocratic Conference (IDC) believes that one way for New York to help finance thisassistance will be to set aside future revenues in the form of license fees from new casino gaminglicenses in New York specifically to fund TAP. In doing so, New York would have the fundsnecessary to finance the DREAM Act, an expansion of TAP eligibility to undocumentedstudents. These students deserve the same access to higher education that New York makespossible for other New York residents. By using new gaming revenues to fund this expansion,

New York can help these students without having to divert money from existing TAPbeneficiaries.

I. The IDC Proposes the DREAM Big Act

The thousands of undocumented students studying in New York right now, students who had nosay in their immigration status and call New York home, deserve the same access to highereducation granted to other New Yorkers. For this reason, the IDC is introducing the DREAMBig Act. This new legislationwould give these students access to higher education byestablishing the funding stream necessary to ensure that we can grant that access without

endangering the access other New Yorkers currently enjoy.

This legislation would first create a DREAM Fund that would come into effect in January 1st,2014. The DREAM Fund would collect private donations to help undocumented students eligiblefor grants pay for a postsecondary education. A commission would be formed to help establishthe specific academic qualifications for grants as well as grant amounts. The DREAM Fundwould also make it easier for these families to use their own money to pay for college by givingthem the same access to tax deferred family tuition accounts.

2


3/14

The IDC would highlight the importance of the fund and facilitate donations to the fund byprivate individuals, organizations, corporations and foundations. The DREAM Fund is animportant first step in this legislation and it will give these students more opportunities prior tothe implementation of the DREAM Act portion of this legislation.

The IDC estimates that passing the DREAM Big Act and making undocumented students

eligible for TAP funding would cost New York State an additional $19.66 million. The IDCunderstands that an expansion of TAP eligibility means spending more on TAP. The IDCproposes funding this expansion through the capitalization of new revenue streams created by theexpansion of casino gaming in New York State. The IDC proposes New York State impose a $4million annuallicensing fee on the holders of these casino gaming licenses. While funding fromTAP expansion would come from charging an annual licensing fee, the IDC estimates that justfive casino licenses being issued downstate for expanded casino gaming would generate $643million in additional gaming revenues.

The constitutional amendment to expand casino gaming in New York would allow for sevencasino sites to be established. With seven licenses to issue, imposing an annual licensing fee of

$4 million, would raise $28 million annually. That amount would then be earmarked for TAPand would be sufficient to finance this expansion outlined in the DREAM Big Act. Under theDREAM Big Act the laws provisionsand funding would come into effect ninety days afterthe granting of these seven casino licenses. The IDC envisions that New York will issue theselicenses by December of 2014.

The DREAM Big Act Timeline

Implement the DREAM Fund January 1st, 2014

Collect $4 million fee from each casino

licenses, direct funds for TAP funding

explansion and implement all DREAM BigAct provisions.

Ninety days after licenses are granted

(Projected early 2015)

II. Expanding access to college for all students

Making access to higher education accessible to all the people who reside in New York shouldbe a top priority for New York State. As noted before, a more educated population is a moreproductive population. Being able to earn a degree, whether an Associates, Bachelors or Post-baccalaureate degree, will significantly raise the expected lifetime earnings of an individual.

One of the most important ways that New York helps its citizens attain a higher education isthrough maintaining one of the most affordable public higher education systems in the country.According to the College Boards report on Trends in College Pricing for 2012v, the average costof tuition and fees for a public four-year institution in New York was around $6,600, puttingNew York in the bottom third in terms of cost. The other way in which New York helps itsresidents attain a higher education is through its programs aimed at providing assistance infinancing higher education.

3


4/14

The Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) is by far the largest and most important of New Yorkscollege financing assistance programs. As noted before, the Enacted FY 2012-13 Budget setaside $877 million for the program and the DOB estimates that spending will increase in thecoming years. TAP awards are available to legal New York state residents who meet theacademic requirementsvi for entry into an approved public or private New York state institutionof higher learning and who fall within the relevant income limits. The maximum award any

student can be granted is $5,000, though the vast majority of students are awarded less.According to a report from the Comptrollers office from March 2012vii, between the FY 2005-6Budget and the FY 2010-11 Budget, the number of students granted TAP awards ranged from alow of 309,188 to a high of 330,110.

TAP is funded through regular budget appropriations and is thus subject to the same budgetpressures that other State programs face in times of fiscal difficulty. The FY 2010-11 budget,which had to close a massive multi-billion dollar budget deficit, made a number of cuts to theTAP program such as cutting all awards by $75, imposing smaller maximum awards for certaindegree programs, eliminating TAP awards for graduate students and calculating family incomedifferentlyviii. These cuts meant that thousands of New York students suddenly found it more

difficult to pay for a higher education. The IDC believes that access to higher education is asimportant today as access to primary and secondary education. For this reason the IDC proposesthat new revenues from license fees on expanded gaming options in New York should be setaside specifically for increasing access to higher education, providing TAP with a dedicatedincome stream that would supplement, not replace, funding for this program.

III. Access to college for non-legal residents of New York State

In 2002, New York became one of the first States in the United States to grant children in NewYork whose parents had brought them to this country illegally, the ability to pay in-state tuitionat New Yorks public universities and colleges. The purpose of this policy was to make it easier

for these students to get a college education. Students eligible for this program had grown up inNew York, and denying them the same access to higher education that other New Yorkers havebecause of something they had no control over was patently unfair. While New York grantedthese students the right to pay in-state tuition at our public institutions of higher learning, theywere not granted access to programs to help them pay for college, such as TAP.

The increase in cost for higher education has made it more difficult for families in New York tofund it without assistance. The families of undocumented immigrantsixare more likely to live inpoverty or have a lower than average annual household income than that of legal immigrants andU.S. born residents. Since these families do not have access to any federal college tuitionassistance programs, nor any state college tuition assistance programs, their prospects for being

able to pay for college are low.

Immigrants, whether they are in the country legally or not, contribute to New Yorks economy.Denying undocumented students the ability to maximize their potential academically andprofessionally hurts New Yorks economy.

That is why to achieve the important goal of increasing access to higher education forundocumented students, the IDC proposes implementation of the DREAM Big Act. By doing so,

4


5/14

New York would follow in the footsteps of California by giving these students access to state-funded college assistance programs, such as the TAP program. Making these students eligiblefor TAP awards will mean an increase in the number of students that would apply for TAP.Given the modest economic means of most undocumented families, it would also mean anincrease in the number of TAP awards granted, apart from any changes that might occur forthose populations already eligible to apply for TAP. Measuring how many more students might

be eligible for and granted TAP awards is challenging. The very nature of being anundocumented immigrant makes acquiring solid statistical data on how many reside in NewYork difficult.

Several estimates of the cost of expanding TAP to undocumented students have been made. TheNew York State Education Department (NYSED) issued an estimate in December 2011thatapproximately 4,550 undocumented immigrants graduate from high school in New York eachyear, and that only five percent of them would choose to attend a New York college oruniversity. Using an estimate of the average TAP award of $2,764, NYSED estimated the cost toTAP at $627,428x. This estimate is far too low, especially when considering the ProfessionalStaff Congress at CUNYs estimate that 4,500 undocumented students attend CUNY currentlyxi.

The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) has also estimated the costs to TAP with expansion to it toundocumented students. According to their estimatexii, an average of 3,267 undocumentedstudents graduate from high school in New York each year, 1,777 of which would choose toattend a college or university in New York. Adding up all the students who would becomeeligible for TAP that were already in a New York college or university, would amount to 5,469eligible students. The FPI then assumed that only two thirds of these students would be eligiblefor a TAP grant and that due to the limited means of most of their families, they would be giventhe maximum allowed TAP awards. Since the maximum TAP award is based on the type ofinstitution a student attends, the FPI estimated that 70% of them would attend four year college(eligible for $5,000) and 30% of them would attend community colleges (eligible for $4,000),

based on the estimated breakdown of undocumented students already attending CUNY. In total,FPI assumed that the total cost for the state would be $17,135,245.

NYSED and FPI based their estimate of students who graduate high school on national estimatesdated several years back of how many undocumented students graduate from high schoolannually in the United States. The Pew Research Centers Pew Hispanic Centerxiiiprovides thebest available estimates for the undocumented population in the United States. Pew has estimatedthat the undocumented population has declined from 12 million in 2007 to 11.1 million in2011.xiv. New York accounts for 5.6% of that population total, amounting to 625,000xv.

Texas provides some insight in calculating a more accurate estimate of undocumented student

college and university attendance. In 2001 Texas was the first state to allow undocumentedstudents to pay in-state tuition at Texas public universities and colleges. According to the TexasHigher Education Coordinating Board, 16,476 undocumented students had sought in-state tuitionfor community colleges and universities in 2010xvi. 12,000 of these students are attendingcommunity colleges, or about 75% of students. This is close to the reverse of the patternestimated for undocumented students in CUNY. That difference is likely the result of the vastdisparity in costs between public community colleges in Texas and public universities, a greaterdisparity than the difference in costs between community colleges and public universities in New

5


6/14

Yorkxvii. These differences in types of enrollment in New York and Texas clearly demonstratethat the cost of college has massive influence on the choices in higher education made byundocumented students.

Using the Texas numbers as a guide to calculate New York State estimates for the number ofundocumented students, and using the estimates of how many undocumented students will apply

for in-state colleges, in proportion to the total undocumented population provided by the PewHispanic Centerxviii, we estimate that in 2010 there were a total of 6,241 students in New York.While this is a higher estimate than the FPI estimate, it is consistent with the estimate that 4,500undocumented students currently attend CUNY. According to an earlier study of undocumentedimmigrants, 94% of them reside in metropolitan regions, as opposed to 80% of the general USpopulationxix. The concentration of these students in New York City and the CUNY systemwould make sense.

Figure 1: Estimated number of undocumented students enrolled in New York, 2010

Undocumented population Undocumented Students

Texas 1.65 million 16,476

New York 625,000 6,241

Since estimates of the undocumented population for New York have remained static according torecent data, this number should have remained relatively constant for the purposes of our costprojection. If we use the same assumptions as FPI did in terms of what percentage of thesestudents would chose a four year degree and how many would chose a two-year degree, andassume that all qualifying undocumented students receive the maximum award, we estimate thatthe cost to the state in the form of additional TAP wards would be $19.66 million.

Figure 2: Estimated cost to TAP for undocumented students

TotalUndocumented

Students

Numbergranted TAP

awards

Attending 4-yearinstitution (get

$5000)

Attending 2-yearinstitution (Get

$4,000)Total TAP awards

6,241 4,182 2,927 1,255 $ 19,655,000

While expansion of the TAP program to undocumented students is the main thrust of theproposed DREAM Big Act, the IDC also proposes in this legislation and important first step, theestablishment of a DREAM Fund. The DREAM Fund, instituted already in Illinois, wouldprovide access to higher education through a designated fund. The fund would be financedthrough private contributions from individuals and corporations. The Illinois Dream Fund hascollected $500,000 and is projected to collect morexx. Illinois funds grants available to qualifiedapplicants up to $6,000. As in Illinois, the DREAM Big Act would create a commission incharge of setting up the rules by which the donations would be used and rules regulating the

6


7/14

eligibility for its grants. The IDC expects that, as in Illinois, the fund would attract individual,corporate and foundational support.IV. Gaming Revenues and Education in New York

In 1966, New York State voters passed a constitutional amendment allowing for a State lotterysystem, administered by the Division of Lottery. Revenues from the lottery were allocated to

education funding, and have since become a significant source of funding for education in NewYork. This funding finances the general school aid budget, which funds New York primary andsecondary education. According to the DOB, the lottery brought in $2.15 billion in revenue foreducation funding in FY 2011-12 and is expected to provide $2.19 billion in FY 2012-13xxi.

In November 2001, the Legislature passed legislation that allowed for the creation of racinos inNew York State. A racino is a gaming establishment attached to an existing thoroughbred racetrack. The legislation allowed racinos to install Video Lottery Terminals (VLTs), automatedmachines, similar to slot machines in traditional casinos, that met the qualifications outlined inthe 1966 constitutional amendment.

The first racino in New York opened in 2004, in Saratoga Springs. Since then, eight more have

been established, including the newest racino, at the Aqueduct raceway in Ozone Park, Queens.According to a report by the State Comptrollers office in July of 2012, from their establishmentin 2004 through the end of FY 2011-12, VLTs have contributed a total of $3.15 billion ineducation aid for school districts around the state. DOB estimated that revenues from theseVLTs totaled $682 million in FY 2011-12 and they estimate that in FY 2012-13, this amountwould go up to $821 millionxxii, though some reports state estimate revenue could total $836millionxxiii. As the figures show, gaming revenues are an important part of New Yorks educationfunding.

V. Casino gaming in New York State

Currently there are five class III casinos in New York. The existing casinos are run by theSeneca, Oneida, and Mohawk Nations, on their respective tribal territories. Class III casinos,defined under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, are casinos that offer the full range of gamingoptions such as slot machines, table games and card games. Individual compacts with eachNation establishes how revenues are shared amongst the Nations, localities and New York State.Under the New York State constitution, other casino gaming is banned outside of these triballands.

In 2012, the 2011-2012 Legislature passed a resolution for a constitutional amendment thatwould allow for the establishment of seven casinos in New York State. Unlike the racinos,

which can only offer VLTs and wagering on horse races, new casinos would expand gaming toinclude card and tables games. If this resolution passes in the incoming 2013-2014 Legislature, itwould be put to a referendum election.

If passed by referendum, there will still be many issues to resolve, such as deciding whichcompanies will be able to bid for the rights to establish these casinos, possible locations of thecasinos, what games will be allowed, what other entertainment options may be offered, howcasino revenues will be distributed, and the tax rate on casino profits. At the same time, it is

7


8/14

clear that the expansion of casino gambling in New York would prove to be profitable. Based oncurrent gaming revenues in the Northeast, the IDC believes that even conservative estimatesreveal that gaming would deliver substantial revenue.

VI. The existing casino market in and around New York State

The gaming market in the Northeast has expanded significantly in the last couple of decades. Formany years, Atlantic City in New Jersey was the only gaming site in the Northeast. New Jerseynow has eleven casinosxxiv. In 1992, Connecticut opened two large native casinos, Foxwoods in1992, and Mohegan Suns in 1996. Subsequently, New Yorks opened nine racinos and fivenative casinos and Pennsylvania opened eleven casinosxxv . Pennsylvania allows its race tracks torun full-fledged casinos, in addition to establishing casinos independent of racetracks. WhileMassachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire have no racinos or casinos, Rhode Island hastwo racinos Collectively, the introduction of gaming in these states has changed the dynamicsof the gaming industry in the Northeast.

Figure 3: Gaming Revenue in select Northeast states, CY 2011xxvi

State Slot Machine Revenue Other Gaming revenue Total Gaming Revenue

Connecticut (Native) $ 1,344,709,057 $ 578,301,973 $ 1,923,011,030New Jersey $ 2,340,114,059 $ 1,008,105,641 $ 3,348,219,700Pennsylvania $ 2,405,141,577 $ 619,888,923 $ 3,025,030,500Rhode Island $ 512,798,872 $ - $ 512,798,872New York (VLT) $ 1,259,252,847 $ - $ 1,259,252,847New York (Native) N/A N/A $ 1,052,000,000Totals $ 7,862,016,412 $ 2,206,296,537 $ 11,120,312,949

Figure 3 shows the revenue collected from casinos and racinos by state. Revenue totals varybased on the tax rate that each state imposes on the gaming establishments. For example, in2011, Pennsylvania collected $1.456 billion in tax revenues from its casinos while New Jerseycollected only $277.6 million in tax revenues from its casinos, even though New Jersey casinos

had higher overall revenues.

[Continued on to next page]

8


9/14

Figure 4: Locations of casinos in the Northeast1

While New York already has a number of Native casinos, state revenues from them are lowerthan projected revenues collected from casinos established under New York State law.Furthermore, the Seneca and Mohawk tribes have withheld revenues from the State andlocalities, claiming that the establishment of racinos near existing tribal casinos, are a violationof the compact held between New York State and the tribes. The dispute is currently headingtowards binding arbitrationxxvii.

VII. Assumptions for an estimate for casino revenue in New York

The section above has highlighted a number of variables critical to establishing a minimumestimate for the amount of new revenues the state might collect from allowing casino gamblingin the state. Regional and local competition for gaming options is another variable.

1 UMASS-Darmouth Center for Policy analysis, New England Casino Gaming Update, 2012,pg xi.http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdf

9
http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdf


10/14

In our conservative estimate scenarios, New York would apply the same rate that Pennsylvaniahas, which is 16% of revenuexxviii, while the new video gaming machines would be taxed at thesame rate used for the VLTs. The ongoing dispute between the State and the Mohawk andSeneca nations complicates matters since it is harder to make assumptions about whether newcasino locations would be established in Western New York. These parameters limit theprojected locations to five likely locations: the Capitol region, the Hudson Valley and Downstate

New York, based on the assumption that most of these would be granted to companies that runthe existing racinos. This would include granting a license to: Empire City Casino at Yonkersraceway, the Resorts World Casino New York City, Saratoga Gaming and Raceway and theMonticello Casino and Raceway, in addition to a facility in Suffolk County on Long Island.

New Yorks racinos have much fewer VLTs in service than Pennsylvanias casinos have slotmachines. The nine New York racinos have 17,270 VLTsxxix, whereas Pennsylvania has acombined 26,785 slot machinesxxx.

In coming up with plausible estimates for the earnings from table gaming at these five assumedcasino sites, we examined the gaming revenues from specific Pennsylvania casinosxxxi. and

examined their relative market size, the number of slot machines they currently offer and ourestimates of how many additional VLTs or slot machines might be added by the creation of newcasinos or the enlargement of existing facilities.

VIII. Estimate of possible casino revenues for New York

The estimate of possible casino revenue for Empire City Casino at Yonkers and the ResortsWorld Casino New York City at the Aqueduct assumes that neither facility will increase thenumber of video gaming machines available and that they will just offer table gaming. Given thesize of these complexes and their accessibility, the best comparisons for them are the SandsCasino Resort in Bethlehem and Parx Casino. Both also have attached race tracks. These two

facilities had table gaming revenues of$128 million and $117 million. At the Pennsylvania taxrate, these casinos combined paid around $40 million in taxes and fees.

The estimate of possible casino revenue from a new Suffolk gaming facility assumes that itwould add 2,000 more video gaming machines. Such a casino would be accessible to theresidents of Long Island, New York City and possibly Connecticut. A good comparison for thissite would be the Sugar House casino in Philadelphia. The Sugar House is not attached to a racetrack and has only 1,600 slots. It has a table gaming revenue of$81 million and contributed $13million in tax revenue from that.

The estimate of possible casino revenue from Saratoga Gaming and Raceway assumes that it

would expand its video gaming machines from approximately 1,900 to 2,400. A goodcomparison for an expanded Saratoga Gaming and Racing is the Harrahs Philadelphia Casinoand Racetrack. That facility earned $80 million in table game revenue and paid $13 million intaxes for it.

Finally, the Monticello Casino and Raceway in the Hudson Valleys estimated casino revenueassumes that it would expand the number of video gaming machines by 500, brining its totalnumber to 1,710. A good proxy for this casino would be the Presque Isles Downs & Casino, a

10


11/14

racetrack in Erie County, Pennsylvania. This facility has 2,066 slots but only makes $22 millionin table games revenues, paying $3.4 million in taxes from it.

Figure 5: Estimated Annual Casino Revenues

Possible future Casino Estimate of Table revenues Estimated tax revenue

Empire City $117,000,000 $18,720,000.00

Resort Worlds $129,000,000 $20,640,000.00New Suffolk facility $81,000,000 $12,960,000.00

Saratoga Racing $80,000,000 $12,800,000.00

Monticello $22,000,000 $3,520,000.00

Totals $429,000,000 $68,640,000.00

Our total estimate for casino gaming revenues added an additional 3,000 video gamingmachines: 2,000 in Long Island and 500 each in expanded facilities at Saratoga Raceway andMonticello. Again, the assumption is that these new machines will be taxed at the same rate ofthe existing VLTs. Since there are 17,270 VLTs currently active in the nine racinos, expandingvideo gaming by 3,000 machines represents an increase of 17% at the racinos, providing

additional gaming revenue of around $214 million and $141 million in additional state revenues.

Additional Revenue Sources Additional Gaming

Revenue

Revenue Raised

New Table gaming options $429 million $68.64 million

Additional video gaming

machinesS 214 million $141 million

Total $643 million $209.64 million

Based on these estimates, the five casinos outlined above would earn an additional $433 milliona year. This conservative estimate still illustrates how profitable an expansion of casino gamblingwould be. This estimate also only takes into account revenues from five possible casinos, not therevenues earned through awarding the full seven licenses available.

IV. Licensing Fees

Given the enormous profits likely to follow casino expansion in New York State, further revenuecould be earned through charging casinos a yearly licensing fee. An annual licensing fee wouldprovide a steady, consistent stream of revenue that could be allocated for such initiatives as the

DREAM Big Act, at a relatively minimal cost to casinos. The IDC believes that an annuallicensing fee that would substantially improve access to higher education for New Yorkers andundocumented students would not greatly affect the profits made by gaming companies who ownthe newly expanded casinos.

The Genting Group was willing to pay an up-front $380 million fee for the rights to operate thenew Resorts World Casino New York City at the Aqueduct racetrack, which has proven to behighly profitable. The conservative IDC estimate above shows that even with only five casino

11


12/14

licenses issued for locations Downstate and in the Capitol Region, the holders of these licensescould earn $433 million in revenue AFTER taxes.

Mandating a substantial annual licensing fee could affect the eventual tax rate on revenuecharged to license holders, though it is likely that such an affect would be significant.

12


13/14

i State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. (Zaback, Katie, Carlson, Andy & Crellin, Matt) The EconomicBenefits of Post-Secondary Degrees. A State and National Level Analysis Dec. 2012. Pg. 2. Retrieved at:http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Econ%20Benefit%20of%20Degrees%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdfii Armario, Christine (June 13, 2012) Average Cost of four-year university up 15%. USA Today Money. Retrieved fromhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-13/college-costs-surge/55568278/1iii New York State Division of Budget. Enacted Budget Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2012 April 2012. Pg. 63.Retrieved at:http://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/2012-13EnactedBudget.pdfiv Ibidv College Board Advocacy and Policy Center. Trends in College Pricing 2012, pg. 17. Retrieved at:http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2012-full-report_0.pdfvi New York Higher Education Services Corporation. About TAP Retrieved at:http://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/SFC/About_TAPviiNew York State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability. Effective Oversight of the Tuition Assistance

Program: Schools can Avoid Disallowances by Ensuring Eligibility March 2012. Pg. 4. Retrieved at:http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/highered/12d1.pdfviii New York Higher Education Services Corporation 2010-11 TAP Grant Award Funding Announced Retrieved at:http://www.hesc.ny.gov/content.nsf/HESC/201011_TAP_Grant_Award_Funding_Announcedix PewResearch Hispanic Center. (Passel, Jeffrey & Cohn DVera) A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants inthe United States April 2009. Pg. 16. Retrieved at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdfx Santos, Fernanda (Dec. 8, 2011)State Puts a Precise Cost on Helping Illegal Immigrant Students. SchoolBook. Retrievedat:http://www.schoolbook.org/2011/12/08/state-puts-a-precise-cost-on-helping-illegal-immigrant-students

xi Testimony of Michael Fabricant Professional Staff Congress/CUNY Before the Joint Hearing of the Higher Education andImmigration Committees (posted March 22,2012) Retrieved at:http://psc-cuny.org/psc-testifies-support-nyc-council-resolution-supporting-nys-dream-actxii Fiscal Policy Institute. The New York State DREAM Act.A preliminary estimate of costs and benefits March 9, 2012.Retrieved at:http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI-CostBenefitAnalysis-NYS-DREAM-Act-20120309.pdfxiiiPewResearch Hispanic Center. Homepage: http://www.pewhispanic.org/xiv PewResearch Hispanic Center. (Passel, Jeffrey & Cohn DVera) Unauthorized Immigrants: 11.1 Million in 2011

Retrieved at:http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/xv PewResearch Hispanic Center. (Passel, Jeffrey & Cohn DVera) Unauthorized Immigrant Population:National and State Trends, 2010 Pg. 2. Retrieved at:http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf

xvi Wilson, Teddy. (Jan. 24, 2012) Policy change to Texas DREAM Act likely to be approved by higher Ed board. TheAmerican Independent. Retrieved at: http://americanindependent.com/209520/policy-change-to-texas-dream-act-likely-to-be-approved-by-higher-ed-boardxvii Trends in College Pricing, 2012. Pg. 18.xviii PewResearch Hispanic Center. (Passel, Jeffrey & Cohn DVera) Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National andState Trends, 2010. Retrieved at:http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-2010/xix A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States Pg. 3.xx Olivo, Antonio (Oct 27, 2012) Dream Fund to start helping students who are illegal immigrants. The Chicago Tribune.Retrieved at: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-dream-fund-20121027_1_illegal-immigrants-immigrant-students-illegal-statusxxi Enacted Budget Financial Plan for Fiscal Year 2012 April 2012. Pg. 60xxii ibidxxiii

Cruz, Roberto (December 17, 2012) Racinos expect to pay $1B for education next year. TheLegislative Gazette.Retrieved from: http://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2012-12-17-82318.113122-Racinos-expect-to-

pay-1B-for-education-next-year.htmlxxiv The American Gaming Association. 2012 State of the States: The AGA Survey of casino entertainment Pg. 19.Retrieved at: http://www.americangaming.org/files/aga/uploads/docs/sos/aga_sos_2012_web.pdfxxv Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Annual Report / 2011-2012. Pg. 18. Retrieved at:http://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/files/communications/2011-2012_PGCB_Annual_Report.pdfxxviUniversity of Massachusetts Darmouth Center for Policy analysis, New England Casino Gaming Update, 2012, pg. v.Retrieved at:http://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfxxvii Odato, James (Aug. 15, 2012) Casino expansion faces obstacles. The Times Union. Retrieved athttp://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Casino-expansion-faces-obstacles-3791714.php
http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Econ%20Benefit%20of%20Degrees%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdfhttp://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Econ%20Benefit%20of%20Degrees%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdfhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-13/college-costs-surge/55568278/1http://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/2012-13EnactedBudget.pdfhttp://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/2012-13EnactedBudget.pdfhttp://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/2012-13EnactedBudget.pdfhttp://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2012-full-report_0.pdfhttp://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/SFC/About_TAPhttp://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/SFC/About_TAPhttp://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/highered/12d1.pdfhttp://www.hesc.ny.gov/content.nsf/HESC/201011_TAP_Grant_Award_Funding_Announcedhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdfhttp://www.schoolbook.org/2011/12/08/state-puts-a-precise-cost-on-helping-illegal-immigrant-studentshttp://www.schoolbook.org/2011/12/08/state-puts-a-precise-cost-on-helping-illegal-immigrant-studentshttp://psc-cuny.org/psc-testifies-support-nyc-council-resolution-supporting-nys-dream-acthttp://psc-cuny.org/psc-testifies-support-nyc-council-resolution-supporting-nys-dream-acthttp://psc-cuny.org/psc-testifies-support-nyc-council-resolution-supporting-nys-dream-acthttp://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI-CostBenefitAnalysis-NYS-DREAM-Act-20120309.pdfhttp://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI-CostBenefitAnalysis-NYS-DREAM-Act-20120309.pdfhttp://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI-CostBenefitAnalysis-NYS-DREAM-Act-20120309.pdfhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/http://www.pewhispanic.org/http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdfhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdfhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdfhttp://americanindependent.com/209520/policy-change-to-texas-dream-act-likely-to-be-approved-by-higher-ed-boardhttp://americanindependent.com/209520/policy-change-to-texas-dream-act-likely-to-be-approved-by-higher-ed-boardhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-2010/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-dream-fund-20121027_1_illegal-immigrants-immigrant-students-illegal-statushttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-dream-fund-20121027_1_illegal-immigrants-immigrant-students-illegal-statushttp://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2012-12-17-82318.113122-Racinos-expect-to-pay-1B-for-education-next-year.htmlhttp://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2012-12-17-82318.113122-Racinos-expect-to-pay-1B-for-education-next-year.htmlhttp://www.americangaming.org/files/aga/uploads/docs/sos/aga_sos_2012_web.pdfhttp://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/files/communications/2011-2012_PGCB_Annual_Report.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Casino-expansion-faces-obstacles-3791714.phphttp://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Econ%20Benefit%20of%20Degrees%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdfhttp://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files/publications/Econ%20Benefit%20of%20Degrees%20Report%20with%20Appendices.pdfhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-13/college-costs-surge/55568278/1http://publications.budget.ny.gov/budgetFP/2012-13EnactedBudget.pdfhttp://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-pricing-2012-full-report_0.pdfhttp://www.hesc.com/content.nsf/SFC/About_TAPhttp://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/highered/12d1.pdfhttp://www.hesc.ny.gov/content.nsf/HESC/201011_TAP_Grant_Award_Funding_Announcedhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdfhttp://www.schoolbook.org/2011/12/08/state-puts-a-precise-cost-on-helping-illegal-immigrant-studentshttp://psc-cuny.org/psc-testifies-support-nyc-council-resolution-supporting-nys-dream-acthttp://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPI-CostBenefitAnalysis-NYS-DREAM-Act-20120309.pdfhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/12/06/unauthorized-immigrants-11-1-million-in-2011/http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdfhttp://americanindependent.com/209520/policy-change-to-texas-dream-act-likely-to-be-approved-by-higher-ed-boardhttp://americanindependent.com/209520/policy-change-to-texas-dream-act-likely-to-be-approved-by-higher-ed-boardhttp://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-2010/http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-dream-fund-20121027_1_illegal-immigrants-immigrant-students-illegal-statushttp://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-27/news/ct-met-illinois-dream-fund-20121027_1_illegal-immigrants-immigrant-students-illegal-statushttp://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2012-12-17-82318.113122-Racinos-expect-to-pay-1B-for-education-next-year.htmlhttp://www.legislativegazette.com/Articles-Main-Stories-c-2012-12-17-82318.113122-Racinos-expect-to-pay-1B-for-education-next-year.htmlhttp://www.americangaming.org/files/aga/uploads/docs/sos/aga_sos_2012_web.pdfhttp://gamingcontrolboard.pa.gov/files/communications/2011-2012_PGCB_Annual_Report.pdfhttp://www.umassd.edu/media/umassdartmouth/seppce/centerforpolicyanalysis/NEGU_2012.pdfhttp://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Casino-expansion-faces-obstacles-3791714.php


14/14

xxviii 2012 State of the States: The AGA Survey of casino entertainment pg. 21xxix New York State Comptroller Division of State Government Accountability. Administration of Video Lottery TerminalRevenues. Division of Lottery July 2012. Pg. 4. Retrieved at:http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s56.pdfxxx Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Annual Report / 2011-2012. Pg. 18xxxi Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. Annual Report / 2011-2012. Pgs. 18-23.
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s56.pdfhttp://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s56.pdfhttp://www.osc.state.ny.us/audits/allaudits/093012/10s56.pdf

senate idc dream act

Documents