Month: January 2014

Testimony: Crime Trends in California

As legislators prepare to consider the state budget, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee took a broad look at public safety realignment at a hearing this week. The committee invited PPIC research fellow Magnus Lofstrom to testify about the impact of this major change in corrections policy on crime in California.

My name is Magnus Lofstrom. I am a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. As many of you know, PPIC is a nonpartisan, independent research institute focused on major policy issues in the state. I have been asked to provide an overview of recent crime trends in California to help set the context for your decisions.

The source of crime data most commonly used by researchers is the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Report, which covers crimes reported or identified by law enforcement agencies. The data fall into two broad categories: violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and property crimes (burglary, larceny theft, and motor vehicle theft). The published FBI crime statistics for California are compiled by the California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center, which also makes more-detailed monthly data available to the public.

The vast majority of crimes reported in California are property crimes—about 87 percent in 2012. Among these, 61 percent are larceny thefts, 23 percent are burglaries, and 16 percent are motor vehicle thefts. Aggravated assaults and robberies account for 94 percent of violent crime (59% and 35% respectively). Close to 5 percent of reported violent crimes are rapes and slightly more than 1 percent are homicides.

Crime rates in California have been coming down for some time and have reached historic lows (Figure 1). The decline in violent crime dates back to the early 1990s, while the property crime rate has seen a year-to-year decrease in most years since 1980. Although there is no consensus among researchers on the causes of the long-term decline, factors that typically drive trends include changes in sentencing laws and incarceration, demographics (for example, age and race/ethnicity), economic conditions, the dynamics of illegal drug markets, law enforcement officer levels, and policing strategies. The influence of these factors on crime trends varies with the type of crime.

Importantly, the most recent data indicate that the long-term trends might be reversing. This is especially noticeable for property crimes.

After reaching a 45-year low in 2011 of 412 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, in 2012 California’s violent crime rate went up slightly to 422. Nonetheless, the 2012 violent crime rate is at a historically low level—about one-third of its 1992 peak. In 2012, California’s violent crime rate was higher than the national rate of 387 per 100,000 residents and ranked 16th among all states.

The number of property crimes in California increased by 7.6 percent between 2011 and 2012, driving the property crime rate up from 2,586 to 2,757 per 100,000 residents. As with violent crime, property crime is substantially below its peak of 6,939 in 1980. California’s property crime rate continues to be below the national rate (2,859 per 100,000 residents in 2012) and ranked 24th among all states in 2012.

Crime rates vary substantially across the state (Table 1). The highest violent crime rates in 2012 were in San Joaquin and Alameda Counties (889 and 765 violent crimes per 100,000 residents, respectively). The lowest were in the relatively small counties of Placer and Trinity (188 and 155, respectively). We also see dramatic differences across counties in property crime. For example, San Francisco’s property crime rate of 4,848 in 2012 was more than three times higher than the property crime rates in Modoc, Lassen, and Trinity Counties (1,630, 1,578, and 1,383, respectively).

Recent changes in the number of crimes also vary dramatically across the state (Table 2). For example, violent crime went up by 11.6 percent between 2011 and 2012 in Contra Costa, but it decreased by 3.4 percent in Los Angeles. Property crime increased by 23.2 percent in Santa Clara, 18 percent in Alameda and 15.6 percent in Kern –all more than double the 7.6 percent statewide increase—while it increased by only 0.2 percent in Fresno.

Because the recent reversal of statewide crime trends coincided with the implementation of public safety realignment in 2011, questions have been raised about the role of the reform. Motivating these questions is the increase of so-called “offender street time.” Our research shows that about 18,000 offenders who in past years would have been in either prison or jail are not incarcerated now as a result of realignment. We also find that these changes did not affect counties equally. Counties that relied more heavily on the state prison system before realignment saw bigger increases in offender street time. This was especially true in counties that faced serious jail capacity constraints, including the 18 counties with court-ordered jail population caps.

In our research, we assess the extent to which realignment contributed to the recent increases in crime. Our primary approach is to compare changes caused by realignment in county incarceration rates to changes in crime rates (which vary both across counties and over time). That is, we examine the potential effect of changes in street time on crime. To increase our confidence in the results and put them in the context of national changes, we also compare California’s crime trends to trends in other states. Let me begin my discussion with the latter analysis.

In our comprehensive analysis, we find no convincing evidence that realignment has contributed to increases in violent crime, so far. Instead, the recent modest increase in violent crime appears to be part of a broader trend, also seen in other states (Figure 2).

In contrast, our research provides strong evidence that realignment has caused an increase in property crime. In contrast to California’s 7.6 percent increase, property crime nationwide decreased slightly—by 0.9 percent—between 2011 and 2012. Moreover, California’s property crime trend matches up very well with trends in comparable states before realignment, but it starts to diverge in 2011 (Figure 3).

Our analysis of county crime and incarceration data supports what we found in the analysis of state crime trends. The changes in incarceration rates caused by realignment have not led to an increase in violent crime so far, but there has been an increase in property crime, particularly auto thefts. We estimate an additional 1.2 motor vehicle thefts per year for each offender not incarcerated as a result of realignment (Figure 4).

Our estimates translate to an increase in the auto theft rate of about 65 more thefts per year per 100,000 residents. To put it slightly differently, realignment caused an increase of about 24,000 auto thefts per year. It is worth noting that even with this increase, auto theft rates remain historically low. They are now at the levels we observed as recently as 2009.

These estimates can be used to compare the costs of incarceration to its effect in preventing crime. This cost-benefit exercise shows that the state has not gotten a good return on its investment: an additional dollar spent on incarceration yields only about 23 cents in terms of the crimes averted.

The limited impact of incarceration on crime prevention can also be seen by comparing the effects of prison incarceration and policing. If we were to spend an additional dollar on policing rather than incarceration, we could prevent 3.5 to 7 times as many crimes. Of course, additional policing is only one possible alternative to incarceration. Researchers and policymakers can and should explore many policy options.

As California’s major public safety reform continues to unfold, our work highlights the need for the state and the counties to consider a variety of ways to handle their public safety responsibilities effectively and cost-efficiently.

Californians Want the State to Lead

Californians have consistently supported their state government in making its own policies on national issues. Past PPIC Statewide Surveys have shown that residents want the state to address global warming, and they have also favored independent state action on health care. Now there is one more issue to add to the list: immigration. Our new survey shows that 58 percent support California acting on its own to improve the lives of undocumented immigrants in our state.

It is not surprising that Californians are looking to their state government to act on key issues like climate change, health care, and immigration. Residents increasingly view state government in a more positive light than the federal government. The governor’s job approval rating, which held steady for much of 2013, has now climbed to a record-high 58 percent. The legislature’s job approval rating, at 42 percent, is at a near-record high. In contrast, Congress’ rating—which fell to a record-low 18 percent in December—is now just 26 percent. And President Obama’s approval rating is near its lowest point, at 53 percent.

Californians are also optimistic that state elected officials can work together and accomplish a lot in the next year (57%), while far fewer hold this view of their federal leaders (37%).

California’s policymakers have been in sync with state residents. They’ve taken leadership on climate change, been proactive in implementing federal health care reform, and most recently enacted a series of laws affecting undocumented immigrants. In the last year, Governor Brown signed the Trust Act, which limits the criteria by which a local law enforcement agency can comply with federal deportation hold requests. He also signed bills allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain a California driver’s licenses and be admitted as attorneys. In doing so, Brown said, “While Washington waffles on immigration, California’s forging ahead.”

With few signs of gridlock easing at the federal level and one party in control in Sacramento, it will be interesting to see where else California decides to forge ahead.

Chart Source: PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government, January 2014.

Drought Watch: Lessons from the Past

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

As California’s drought crisis unfolds, there will be calls from many quarters for extraordinary actions to help reduce the economic and social costs to communities and sectors at risk. California’s leaders in Sacramento, Washington, D.C., and around the state will need to weigh the pressure to act against the risk of making snap decisions that provide short-term relief yet have much higher long-term costs. As I describe in a commentary for the San Francisco Chronicle – written with PPIC adjunct fellow and UC Davis Professor Jay Lund – water agencies have fallen into this trap when responding to some past droughts. For instance, excessive pumping from the Delta during the 1987–92 drought contributed to the establishment of some invasive species that have plagued management of this system ever since.

Fortunately, there are also positive lessons from past droughts that can help guide today’s actions. One is that a water market – which allows those with relatively ample supplies to lease water to those who don’t – can significantly reduce costs to cities, farms, and the environment. The governor has called for steps to make this kind of trading easier. Another lesson is that communities that diversify their supply sources and establish stronger linkages with neighboring water systems are better able to weather droughts. Parts of the state that are out ahead on this – including Southern California and much of the Bay Area – are in better shape today thanks to these investment.

Panel Focuses on Increasing Voter Participation

PPIC hosted a panel of leading experts on voter participation in Sacramento yesterday to talk about several important voter reforms underway. Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Los Angeles County Registrar Dean Logan, and California Common Cause Director Kathay Feng responded to a new report from PPIC that says a series of reforms implemented or under consideration in California would result in a small improvement in voter participation. The reforms include online voter registration (which started in 2012), election day registration (expected to start in 2016), and a later deadline for ballots submitted by mail (which is under consideration in the legislature). The PPIC report, by research fellow Eric McGhee, found that online registration changed the way people registered but was responsible for only a very small increase in voter participation.

Still, panelists were hopeful about the future of online registration. They were happy to see that nearly 1 million people used it in the first year—even, as Bowen pointed out, when there was no money to advertise the online option. Feng also said that even small improvements can make a big difference in California, where more than 5 million people are eligible but not registered to vote.

Similarly, panelists expressed optimism about same-day registration—in which voters can both register and cast ballots at a county registrar’s office on election day. They also raised concerns about the potential administrative burden this change would place on local officials. Logan said attempts are being made to modify the policy and alleviate some of the burden before the reform is scheduled to take effect.

In addition to making voting more convenient, panelists talked about the need to motivate voters. Feng pointed to concern about the “exclusive electorate,” as described in a past PPIC report showing that likely voters are far more likely to be white and older than the California voting-age population as a whole. She said it’s important to find out what turns residents off to voting, as well as what might turn them on. Bowen added that government should encourage more civic education to teach “citizens how to be citizens.”

Members of the audience asked questions about the impact of negative campaigns on voter participation, the impact of budget cuts, and the opportunities created by a new voter registration database that is scheduled to be completed in 2016.

Most New Immigrants Are From Asia

News that California has grown to 38.2 million people—the largest population increase in nine years according to the state Department of Finance—garnered a lot of attention. But this increase was actually modest, even slow, when compared to most years before 2005. However, there has been a much more dramatic demographic shift, pinpointed in data from the American Community Survey—a rise in Asian immigration and a decline in Latin American immigration. In 2011 and 2012, three times as many immigrants arrived from Asia as from Latin America.

For decades, Latin America immigrants were by far the largest group coming to California. Even as recently as 2005, 55 percent of all immigrants and 51 percent of those migrating within the past year were from Latin America. However, since then, the number of newly arriving immigrants from Latin America has declined sharply, while the number from Asia has increased.

What accounts for this dramatic change? During the recession, employment prospects for less educated workers fell dramatically and have not recovered as quickly as prospects for more highly educated workers. While only about 14 percent of recent immigrants from Latin America have a college degree, immigrants from Asia tend to be highly educated. About half of working-age Asian adults (ages 18–64) already have college degrees when they arrive in California. In that regard, then, the changing patterns of immigration make sense.

But other factors are undoubtedly at work. Increases in border enforcement and deportations are more likely to affect immigrants from Latin America than from Asia. And improved economic conditions in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, along with slowing population growth, reduces the supply of potential immigrants to California. Still, it will be interesting to see if this new pattern of immigration to California becomes the new normal. If so, in the long run it would lead to a substantial change in the ethnic composition of the state’s population. Just as Latinos are about to surpass whites as the state’s largest ethnic group, perhaps someday Asians will surpass Latinos.

Chart Source: PPIC tabulations based on American Community Survey data.

Drought Watch: Drought Declarations and Water Policy

This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.

As this year unfolds, California will have to come to grips with the significant consequences of the drought emergency declared by Governor Brown. Drought Watch will be a regular feature on this blog, tracking the drought and its policy consequences.

As droughts go, this one is both brutal and unprecedented. We are in the grips of a “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge,” a term coined by Daniel Swain of Stanford University for the high-pressure area that has been pushing storms to the north of us for over a year now. Coupled with the low rainfall and warm temperatures over the previous two years, this dry period is impressive.

Rain and snow in the Sierra Nevada—the state’s most important source of water— are at historic lows, passing our benchmark dry years of 1976–77. Statewide, reservoirs are at near-record lows. In many areas, soil moisture—a critical indicator of the health of our forest and agricultural soils—is as low as it’s ever been for this time of year. Perhaps the most significant indicator, flow in rivers, is grim, setting unprecedented records for low flows during January. Both low soil moisture and record low river flows tell us that we may be witnessing a slowly unfolding ecological train wreck from which it will take many years to recover.

Already we are seeing dramatic proposals for water rationing in communities that failed to diversify their sources of drinking water. California’s recession-proof farm community is unlikely to be drought-proof. Orchard crops—California’s famous fruits and nuts—will be especially vulnerable. The drought will also increase pressure on already over-tapped groundwater basins in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast.

History teaches us a few key lessons about drought. First, as the governor says, he can’t make it rain. He also cannot produce water where it isn’t, though he can make it easier to move water from one place to another. The declaration of an emergency gives the administration and the State Water Resources Control Board, the body that regulates water rights and sets flow and water quality standards, some additional flexibility to facilitate voluntary water transfers and—if things get dire enough—to decide who gets water in an emergency.

The second lesson is that natural disasters often spur longer-term policy changes. That will undoubtedly be the case this year, since major water policy issues are teed up for debate and decisions. The drought will influence our thinking about solutions to the Delta, our chronic overdraft of groundwater, and our struggle to balance water supply reliability and ecosystem health throughout the state.

A crisis can be useful in stimulating action. The challenge for the governor is to ensure that it leads to good policy that paves the way for a better water future—and stays away from short-term, expedient fixes. While popular in a crisis, these can make it harder to manage water when the rains return . . . and they will return, eventually.

Beyond the Drought: 10 Big Changes Ahead for California Water

These days, all water news in California is focused on the weather. After two successive dry years, this year’s rainy season has yet to make a decent showing. Unless the skies open soon, the state seems firmly headed for a major drought, with serious implications for the farm economy, some water-scarce communities, and the fish and other species that depend on our rivers and streams.

Periodic droughts are inevitable in California, given the state’s highly variable climate, and many scientists expect such extreme events to become more frequent with climate change. An essential part of water management in California is preparing for this inevitability—with multi-pronged strategies that include water marketing, groundwater banking, conservation, and investment in non-traditional supplies like recycled wastewater. Each drought provides an opportunity to get better at stretching scarce supplies and reducing the economic hardship caused by water scarcity, as PPIC’s California Water Myths report points out.

I recently wrote a piece—with Jay Lund, PPIC adjunct fellow and UC Davis professor—for the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences’ California WaterBlog that highlights 10 other inevitable changes in store for California water. These changes range from vulnerable levees and uncertain water supply conditions in the Delta to deteriorating groundwater basins to the shrinking Salton Sea. To minimize hardship and disruption, most of the items on our top 10 list will—like droughts—require significant preparation and planning. This is often hard to do, given the tradeoffs and costs of most water management solutions. But we think that preparation is the best way to reduce the pain and develop a water policy that supports the kind of state Californians want, rather than wishfully thinking that California can avoid change.

Testimony: Measuring Poverty in California

On the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s declaration of a “War on Poverty,” the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held a hearing about California’s food stamp program, known as CalFresh. Although the hearing was called to explore federal complaints about high levels of fraud in the California program, it covered CalFresh more broadly, particularly the state’s very low participation rate in the program. PPIC research fellow Sarah Bohn was asked to testify about the impact of CalFresh on the state’s poverty rate. Here are her prepared remarks.

My name is Sarah Bohn. I am an economist and research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. I’m sure most of you are familiar with PPIC, but for those who are not, we are a nonpartisan, independent research institute focused on major policy issues in the state. I have been asked to discuss new measures of poverty in California to help set the context for your decisions.

The latest official poverty estimates suggest that about 16 percent of Californians are poor, and as many as 22 percent of the state’s children are poor. Official poverty statistics such as these are based on a very simple formula developed in the 1960s. The statistics have been useful for tracking trends and determining eligibility for many safety net programs. However, official statistics have not kept up with sweeping changes that have affected family budgets over the past five decades. Families now face higher costs of living and medical expenses, among others. And official statistics do not account for changes in public policy aimed at helping low-income people make ends meet—including programs stemming from the War on Poverty, which is having its 50th anniversary today.

With these shortcomings in mind, researchers have been developing alternative measures of poverty since the 1990s. These efforts culminated in the release of a new estimate of poverty by the Census Bureau in 2012 called the Research Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). It is called “supplemental” because is intended to supplement rather than replace official estimates. And it is called “research” because it is a work in progress, still being refined. It is that effort that researchers at PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality have joined. We introduced our California Poverty Measure in October 2013. It uses basically the same methodology as the Supplemental Poverty Measure with a few refinements that make it a more accurate estimate for California that paints a much more detailed picture. (The Census Bureau’s measure for California is only a single number, averaging rates over three-year period).

Both the Census’ supplemental measure and our new California Poverty Measure provide a more comprehensive estimate of economic need today. For our California-specific measure we make adjustments to the poverty rate formula in three main areas. We use a more comprehensive estimate of family resources—including tax payments and credits (like the Earned Income Tax Credit) and in-kind benefits (like food stamps and housing subsidies). We also factor in nondiscretionary expenses like medical out-of-pocket, child care, and commuting expenses. Finally, our measure judges net family resources against a more up-to-date estimate of what it takes to maintain a basic standard of living (resources for clothing, food, shelter, utilities) and that accounts for geographic variations in housing costs, in particular. Whereas official poverty thresholds are the same for all states and counties, ours vary by county.

The Census supplemental measure and our California Poverty Measure produce similar results—but I will discuss our findings because they are more detailed. Under our measure, 22 percent of Californians were poor in 2011—about 8 million people. That is about 2 million more than the official estimate suggests. When we look at the findings we can see why the supplemental poverty measures are higher. Resources from safety net programs tend to push poverty rates down, while medical expenses and housing costs push poverty rates up. The net result is a higher statewide poverty rate. However, this is not the case in all places within California. Also, our findings vary across age groups. Child poverty under our measure is just a bit higher than the official measure—though still staggeringly high, at about 25 percent. As time allows I can discuss these findings further.

Among families with children, safety net resources play a prominent role in mitigating poverty. We calculate that without the CalFresh program, about 29 percent of California’s children would be considered poor—an additional 4 percent, or 375,000 children. I think it is worth noting that the impact of CalFresh on poverty is almost double the impact of CalWORKs.

If not for the full set of need-based safety net programs we include in our measure (CalFresh, CalWORKs, General Assistance, EITC and CTC, housing subsidies, SSI, and school meals), a stunning 39 percent of children—or 2.7 million—would be poor.

Under the Census supplemental measure and our California Poverty Measure, a higher fraction of California’s population is poor than in any other U.S. state. We know that housing costs are a major factor, because most Californians (70 percent) live in the most expensive counties, where the resources needed to maintain a basic standard of living are about $9,000 above the official poverty measure calculation. However, public programs also play a role. While CalFresh has a sizeable impact on family resources (as I mentioned), not all eligible families participate. In fact, according to the USDA, we have the second-lowest participation rate in CalFresh in 2012. This raises the question of how much more CalFresh could lower the poverty rate if participation increased. In our research, we find a correlation within California between access to CalFresh and the extent to which the program drives down poverty (the effect is about three times greater in counties with high access). More research is required to understand how the picture of poverty might change if the CalFresh program changed, but it is clear that the program plays a big role in mitigating poverty among Californians.

Are You a Have or a Have-Not? Californians’ Views

As the nation marks the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty, it’s clear that income inequality is an issue that resonates with Californians today. According to the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, a record-high 66 percent of residents said the state is divided into haves and have-nots. When asked to characterize themselves Californians are split, with 40 percent saying they are part of the haves and 45 percent saying they are part of the have-nots. But this split obscures a striking change since 2002, when 60 percent viewed themselves as part of the haves and just 32 percent viewed themselves as part of the have-nots.

The legislature is also taking notice and has established a new legislative caucus focusing on poverty and inequality. Part of the mission of the caucus is to increase economic opportunity for all Californians.

Chart Sources: PPIC Statewide Surveys: September 2002 and December 2013.