Cascade Policy Institute

The Children's Scholarship Fund–Oregon (CSF-Oregon) is a program run by the Cascade Policy Institute, and is affiliated with the national Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF) network.[13] Kathryn Hickock, executive vice president at Cascade Policy Institute, also serves as director of CSF-Oregon.[14] According to Hickock, as of January 2022, Children's Scholarship Fund–Oregon has provided $3.5 million in partial tuition scholarships for low-income elementary school children to attend private schools.[14]

In the past, the Cascade Policy Institute sponsored a better government competition, soliciting proposals from the general public about how to improve state or local services.[3][15] The judges included community and political leaders from a wide range of backgrounds, but winning submissions reflected the institute's free-market philosophy.[3] Winners of Cascade's better government competition included proposals to privatize prisons, liquor operations, and Driver and Motor Vehicle Services;[3] reform Oregon's agricultural land use laws;[16] and streamline adoption of children into foster families.[8] In 1994, 8 out of 10 submissions selected for further development were introduced before the Oregon legislature.[15]

Cascade Policy Institute has advocated school choice laws since the organization's inception over 30 years ago.[17][7] Cascade organized conferences supporting charter schools in 1993 and 1994, inviting speakers such as Jeanne Allen, founder of the Center for Education Research, one of the first nationwide groups promoting charter schools, and Ted Kolderie, the policy analyst who helped to develop the first charter school law in Minnesota which passed in 1991.[18] Although charter school bills failed to pass in 1995 and 1997, Oregon finally passed its charter school law in 1999, which included compromises allowing for strong local district control rather than a "pure" free-market approach.[18]

A long-time advocate of medical savings accounts,[19] Cascade Policy Institute sponsored numerous conferences on MSAs starting in 1995,[8][20] and published papers promoting MSAs as a free-market alternative to third-party payer systems.[8]

In 2010, it published a report, The Oregon Health Plan: A “Bold Experiment” that Failed, critiquing the state's inability to meet its objectives.[20] Analysis by Cascade based on U.S. census data showed that the percentage of uninsured Oregonians increased from 12.4 percent in 1990 to 15.3 percent in 1996 after the Oregon Health Plan was first implemented, contradicting a widely cited statistic from the Office of Oregon Health Plan Policy and Research that the percentage had dropped significantly during that period.[21] Cascade also argued that by failing to compensate health care providers adequately, the Oregon Health Plan had caused health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to reduce their services to rural areas.[21]

Cascade has been called one of the leading neoliberal critics of Portland Metro's Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) program,[22] and has testified in front of the Oregon legislature, the TOD Steering Committee, and the Metro task force attempting to raise funds through bonds.[23] Sociologist Erik Solevad Nielsen explains that rather than a wholesale rejection of rail systems or sustainable development, Cascade Policy Institute's stance is that "Metro and TriMet should abandon urban planning, designing and development – and especially avoid high-risk projects."[22] The institute has objected to subsidization of Portland's MAX light rail system and associated development projects, arguing that they have squandered millions of taxpayer dollars, often on projects that have in turn created more housing and transportation problems, and would have been better addressed through privatization.[22] In John Charles's view, the fact that every TOD project undertaken requires subsidies means that the program by definition lacks an economically sustainable business model.[22]

In 2011, the Cascade Policy Institute allied with 1000 Friends of Oregon, a non-profit organization focused on sustainable land use.[24] Acknowledging that they were "strange bedfellows", the two organizations issued a statement that they were nevertheless aligned in opposing certain aspects of a proposed megaproject to build a new bridge and light rail system connecting Oregon and Washington.[24] Instead, they argued, Oregon should focus on seismically retrofitting the existing bridge; funding the construction of a new bridge through tolls; and increasing legislative oversight and management.[24]