Month: May 2014

Are Voters Ready for the Primary?

All signs point to a low turnout in the primary next week. The most important factors that might bring voters to the polls are absent. California recently shifted all citizen initiatives to the fall ballot, depriving this year’s primary ballot of the draw that comes from those campaigns. And the race at the top of the ticket, for the governor’s seat, has not energized voters, as our latest PPIC Statewide Survey shows.

We find that Governor Brown, with the support of 48 percent of primary likely voters, will likely advance to the November general election. In the contest to see who would meet Brown in November, Republicans Tim Donnelly and Neel Kashkari are locked into a close race (Donnelly 15%, Kashkari 10%). However, one in four primary likely voters (27%)—including 34 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents—are still unsure of who they will vote for (17% of Democrats are undecided). And there are other signs that point to voter malaise.

We asked primary likely voters how closely they are following news about the gubernatorial candidates, finding that just 46 percent of primary likely voters are following news about candidates very or fairly closely. By comparison, in May 2010, 67 percent of likely voters were closely following news about candidates. And while attention this year has dropped across parties, it is especially low among Republicans. Today, just 39 percent of Republicans report closely following news about gubernatorial candidates; in May 2010, 68 percent said they were doing so (Democrats: 52% today, 66% 2010; independents: 52% today, 66% 2010).

Looking elsewhere in the survey, we find that only half of primary likely voters (53%) say they are satisfied with their candidate choices in the primary election for governor, while one in three are not satisfied (32%). Democrats (65%) are by far the most satisfied with their choices, while fewer than half of Republicans (43%) and independents (48%) express satisfaction. Of particular note, among those who are not satisfied nearly half (46%) say they are undecided on who they would vote for.

So with the election just days away, it appears as though many Californians have yet to tune into the governor’s race. Time will tell whether future gubernatorial contests can capture the attention of California voters and reverse the state’s recent history of low turnout in its primary elections.

Who Likes Proposition 13?

One of the most remarkably stable trends in California public opinion is the strong majority support for Proposition 13, even as the state’s demographics and politics have changed dramatically. This historic citizens’ initiative had the immediate fiscal impact of lowering property tax rates, restricting annual property tax increases, and raising the bar for local special taxes to a two-thirds majority vote. It also fundamentally changed the state-local relationship in California and ushered in the national tax revolt. Its supporters are shaping our fiscal choices today—even though many were not old enough to vote when the measure passed 36 years ago.

Proposition 13 passed in June 1978—toward the end of Jerry Brown’s first term as governor—with a 65 percent yes vote. Our most recent poll finds that 63 percent of likely voters today say that Proposition 13 has been mostly a good thing—as majorities have said since we began asking this question in 2003.

Among Proposition 13’s supporters today, about half were not old enough to vote, and 14 percent were not even born in 1978. As a group, they are mostly whites and homeowners, with annual household incomes of $60,000 or more. But they are also politically diverse. Supporters are evenly divided along party lines, with four in 10 Democrats, four in 10 Republicans, and two in 10 independents or other party members in this camp. More than half describe themselves politically as middle-of-the-road or liberals, while 45 percent say they are conservatives. About half live in the San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles.

What unites Proposition 13 supporters? One of their signature features is their higher level of distrust in state government. Large majorities say that the state government wastes a lot of the taxpayer’s money, believe that the state government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and say that they trust the state government to do what is right only some time or none of the time. Six in 10 say that the state is headed in the wrong direction, disapprove of the way that the state legislature is handling its job, and rate the state budget situation in California as a big problem. Most say they would prefer to use the budget surplus to pay down the debt rather than restore social services. They are evenly divided when asked if they approve or disapprove of Governor Jerry Brown’s job performance—however, seven in 10 are in favor of his budget plans and approve of a rainy day fund plan that is going to the voters in November.

Proposition 13 supporters register the most consensus when asked about who should make choices for the state budget today: 83 percent want the California voters to make some of the decisions about spending and taxes at the ballot box, while only 13 percent want the governor and legislature to make all of the decisions.

Perhaps the most enduring contribution of Proposition 13 is that it has given the voters a significant and growing role in fiscal policymaking. Voters will decide the fate of the rainy day fund proposal, as well as a multibillion-dollar state water bond also scheduled for the November ballot.

When voters cast their ballots this year, it is important to be aware of the mindset of the sizable and politically diverse coalition of Proposition 13 supporters: a suspicious view of state government and a cautious approach to spending—even in the context of a strengthening fiscal and economic recovery in California.

May Survey Looks at Views on Budget, Drought

The May edition of the PPIC Statewide Survey, Californians and their Government, explores attitudes toward the governor’s latest proposed budget and gauges preferences in the gubernatorial primary. It also examines opinions on health care reform, the drought, poverty, and climate change.

PPIC research associate Dean Bonner presented the results of this wide-ranging survey at a lunch briefing in Sacramento last week.

Drought Watch: Groundwater, Our Hidden Asset

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

The drought has brought the term storage to the forefront of political debate over how to manage water in California. Water scarcity during this drought is perceived by many, including prominent elected officials, as a failure of government to build sufficient storage.

For most, storage refers to water kept in reservoirs behind dams. People tend to forget that we also store water underground, in the state’s many aquifers. And during a drought, this groundwater storage is usually much more important.

Managed well, groundwater is the state’s best hedge against drought. The volume of potential groundwater storage in California is several times greater than surface storage. On average, about 35 percent of annual water use for cities and farms comes from groundwater, and 60 percent or more in some important agricultural regions such as the Tulare Basin and the Central Coast. During a severe drought such as this one, when groundwater pumping increases, this share can go up significantly. But groundwater is not easing the effects of this drought as much as it could because we don’t manage it as drought storage.

A fundamental principle of sustainable groundwater management is that you allow water to accumulate in aquifers during wetter years so that you can pump it out during the dry years when surface water sources are insufficient. In most of California’s main agricultural areas—especially the southern Central Valley and parts of the Central Coast—the total water demands are so great that we have stopped allowing groundwater levels to recover during the wetter years. Instead, we are “mining” groundwater, treating it like oil and gas, extracting it as if it was a non-renewable resource never to be replaced.

This mining—or overdraft—reduces the available supply of groundwater during dry years. It raises the costs of remaining supplies, as wells need to be drilled deeper and electricity bills rise because water has to be pumped from deeper depths. Unsustainable pumping also creates a host of other problems, including dewatering of rivers and wetlands that support fish and wildlife as well as land sinking—or subsidence—that damages roads, bridges, canals, and flood control infrastructure.

Some of California’s large urban areas—including much of Southern California and Silicon Valley—provide valuable lessons on how to move toward more sustainable management of groundwater basins. In these areas, acute groundwater overdraft spurred groundwater users—often with the aid of the courts or the state legislature—to develop management schemes that work. These groundwater basins are overseen by court-appointed water masters or special management agencies that can collect fees, monitor use, and allocate pumping rights. Most important, they can compel users to store water during wet times, so it is available when drought strikes.

A silver lining of the current drought is that it has brought focus to how we manage groundwater, the other water storage in California. Innovative proposals for comprehensive reform are coming from the Brown administration and from grassroots efforts orchestrated by the Association of California Water Agencies and the California Water Foundation. These proposals have the common goal of creating sustainable groundwater management by

  • providing local agencies the tools necessary to manage groundwater sustainably, and
  • giving the state the power to ensure that these standards are achieved if local agencies fail to act.

Now is the time to move forward on this issue, while the consequences of groundwater overdraft are at the center of debate and impacting so many.

Online Courses and Achievement Gaps

This commentary was first published in the Sacramento Bee on May 15, 2014.

Online learning is a hot topic in higher education. Certainly the MOOCs, massive open online courses offered for free and featuring faculty from top universities in the country, have garnered a lot of attention. But perhaps more important has been the rise of online courses—for credit—in the nation’s accredited public colleges. Here in California the state’s community colleges have taken the lead, with course enrollments of about 1 million—more than in any other public higher education system in the nation.

Online learning offers the promise of expanded access to and success in higher education. To truly fulfill that promise, it must do so across the diverse population of California students. Currently, it’s falling short.

At the Public Policy Institute of California, we have recently completed an analysis of student access and success in online courses offered by the state’s community colleges, an important access point for students who are underrepresented in higher education. Online courses offer convenience to students who are often juggling family and work responsibilities. The rapid growth in enrollment in online courses, from just a few thousand 10 years ago to around 1 million today, is a testament to the increasing demand for higher education. Enrollment has grown rapidly among all the state’s ethnic groups. But in a reflection of the state’s digital divide, growth among Latinos has lagged that of other groups.

Perhaps most troubling, achievement gaps are exacerbated in online courses. Completion and success rates for traditional courses are lower among Latino and African American students than among white and Asian students. That gap is even wider online. In traditional classes, the achievement gap between white and African American students is 12.9 percentage points. It is 17.5 percentage points in online courses. Similarly, the gap between whites and Latino students is 7.3 percentage points in traditional courses, but is 9.8 percentage points in online courses. In contrast, white students tend to perform slightly better than Asian students in traditional courses, with an achievement gap of 1.4 percentage points. But they do slightly worse than Asian students in online courses, with an achievement gap of -1.4 percentage points.

Achievement gaps exist among other groups as well. Our research found that older students—those over 25—perform better than younger students in traditional courses. This performance gap widens in online courses, from 10.2 percentage points to 14.8 points. The achievement gap between female and male students is 1.9 percentage points in traditional courses and 3.1 percentage points in online ones. In other words, when demographic groups differed in their performance in traditional courses, these differences tend to be magnified online.

For online learning to reach its full potential, California’s community colleges need deliberate strategies and plans to improve student outcomes in online courses, with a special focus on narrowing achievement gaps among underserved and underrepresented students. Community colleges need to ensure high standards of quality for online courses and provide professional development for faculty to design and deliver them. They also need to incorporate student support tools—both technical and instructional. The community colleges’ new Online Education Initiative is currently pursuing these strategies.

There are ways in which online learning has the untapped potential to yield better student outcomes than the traditional setting does. Online courses can enable instructors to track students’ progress in detail and provide more targeted and effective guidance—potentially offering customized instruction that can address achievement gaps.

Online learning is here to stay.  With smart and informed policies and programs, it can reach many more students and do so much more effectively.

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center.

Health Care Reform: Leaders Discuss Next Steps

At a PPIC event yesterday in Sacramento, a panel of experts credited health care reform for successfully expanding coverage to more than three million people in California. But the panelists also said the enrollment period—which just closed—is the very first step in an overhaul of the health system that will take many years to achieve and see many bumps along the way.

If the reform works, the future could be radically different, said Sandra Hernández, the president and CEO of the California HealthCare Foundation, and Mitchell Katz, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Health. Among the changes they envisioned: By 2024, there may be smaller hospitals, patients who have fewer doctor visits, and care designed to promote health—not just to treat illness.

Diana Dooley, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency, voiced concern that “cost is the elephant in the room.” Unless it is controlled, health care could claim a major and perhaps unsustainable share of the nation’s future GDP, she said.

The comments came during a conversation with PPIC president Mark Baldassare, before a live audience of nearly 300 at the Sacramento Sheraton Grant Hotel—with many also watching the event live online.

Drought Watch: Improving Environmental Management

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

In the previous Drought Watch we examined the need to modernize the way we track water supply and use to better manage droughts. California also needs to modernize how we manage water for the environment during droughts.

By reducing the quality and quantity of habitat, drought poses a broad ecological challenge to California’s fish and wildlife. The stress is particularly acute in watersheds where native species compete with the demands of cities, farms, and forestry for critical land and water supplies. In many watersheds, remaining habitat has become more suitable for invasive, non-native species, which also compete with native species in various ways. The net result can be significant reductions in populations of native species during severe droughts. Recovery can take years.

In a recent blog post, we joined colleagues from UC Davis, UC Hastings, and Stanford to call for reform in the way the state manages the environment during drought. A common approach is to relax flow and water quality standards prescribed for species protection to make more water available for human needs. This year, the State Water Resources Control Board has already done this on numerous occasions, with the concurrence of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies.

This is not necessarily bad drought policy. Regulators have to make difficult choices when there simply is not enough water to go around. However, the process could be improved. Flow and water quality standards for critically dry years are set well in advance of a drought and involve extensive scientific review. In contrast, relaxing standards receives little review, and the process typically does not incorporate plans to mitigate for the consequences, either during or after the drought.

This same ad hoc approach applies to well-meaning efforts to conserve species during a drought. In late April, the governor released an executive order that instructs the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to help endangered fish species, through actions such as monitoring winter run Chinook salmon, improving habitat on state lands, and seeking cooperation from landowners. These are common-sense measures, but if they had been planned for before the drought, they could have been implemented more quickly.

Money for environmental management during a drought is also an afterthought. In his latest state budget, to be considered by the legislature this summer, the governor has proposed approximately $40 million be made available to support actions contained in his executive order. This is a significant increase over the $2.3 million total allocated in emergency state funding in February. Still, this money will not arrive soon enough to make a major difference for this year. Again, planning ahead to raise such funds would be preferable. (See one alternative approach here.)

Good environmental drought policy must anticipate actions that may be necessary to balance human uses of water with the long-term needs of fish and wildlife. The criteria and scientific basis for the relaxation of flow and water quality standards should be developed, reviewed and adopted before a drought emergency. This includes identifying funding mechanisms for emergency responses and mitigation actions that reduce harm during the drought and lead to recovery of species afterward. If California is lucky enough to get through this drought without significant new harm to our native fish and wildlife, let’s make sure we prepare better before the next drought strikes.

Electoral Reforms Face New Test

California’s political reforms—redistricting and the top-two primary—were meant to shake up the status quo through radically redrawn voting districts and a primary system that let voters choose any candidate of any party, and advanced the top two candidates (also regardless of party) to the fall election.

The first time out the gate, in 2012, the reforms didn’t disappoint: numerous incumbents retired, many seats were open, and a lot more candidates threw their hats in the ring. It was the shot across the establishment’s bow that supporters had been looking for.

Things are calmer in this year’s legislative and congressional races. The most obvious sign: an unusually large number of candidates facing no formal opposition. There were eight such races in 2012 and an average of 7 under the previous primary system. Today there are 20.

These candidates may not remain completely uncontested, since there are reasons to think we may see more write-in candidates this time around. The deadline for filing as a write-in—at least one whose votes are actually counted—comes after the normal candidate filing deadline. Under the top two, potential write-ins can wait to see whether a heavyweight ends up uncontested and then jump into the race for less money and effort. As the only other candidate, these write-ins will be guaranteed a spot in the fall campaign. This was not a popular approach in 2012, but candidates are still learning the system, so we may be seeing this strategy coming into its own. We will know more once the official write-in list is announced later this month.

In 2012, there were also a number of incumbents who faced challengers from within their own party. This was a sign, in part, of the better odds facing those challengers under the top two system: so long as they finished at least in second place, they would get another chance to topple the incumbent in the fall campaign. Nonetheless, only a handful of these challenged incumbents lost. Perhaps as a result, fewer incumbents overall face an intra-party challenge this time: 28% this year compared to 42% in 2012. And with only a couple exceptions, even those incumbents facing an intra-party contest are in a dominant financial position.

Finally, there are fewer open seats this year. In 2012, an extraordinarily large number of incumbents chose to retire or run for another office, leaving nine seats open for the U.S. House and 35 open for the state assembly (open seats for the state senate were more in line with past experience). This year, there are six open seats for the U.S. House—still high by historical standards, but less so. And the 23 open seats for the assembly aren’t all that many, at least in the era of term limits.

However, the seats that have come open are hotly contested, as open seats usually are. The great majority of these races feature at least three candidates, and a few have far more than that—with the prize going to Congressional District 33, where no fewer than 18 candidates are vying to replace retiring incumbent Henry Waxman. Moreover, fundraising in these races is much more evenly distributed across a range of candidates.

We are still early in the election cycle, and between the primary and the general there are still plenty of opportunities for surprises. But so far, it looks like the revolution, such as it was, is coming to a close, and a new status quo may be settling into place.

Governor Proposes Minor Changes to K-12 Funding Levels

The governor released the May revision of his 2014-15 budget yesterday. All told, the news was good. Revenues were modestly better than forecast in January—up about $850 million in the coming fiscal year. But due to the complexities of Proposition 98—the constitutional funding guarantee for schools and community colleges—the amount proposed for K-12 education fell slightly.

The governor’s plan for schools is mostly unchanged, however. The chart below illustrates per-pupil funding levels proposed in the May revision. Schools would receive about $8,800 for each student—an increase of $780 from 2013–14. The current estimate of per-pupil funding in 2013-14 is up slightly from the level estimated in January, providing a healthy $430 per student more than in 2012–13.

Most of the new funding in 2014–15 goes to pay for the new Local Control Funding Formula. As in the January budget proposal, the budget includes $4.5 billion, or about $750 per student, for the new funding formula. The three-part formula distributes funding using a base grant (that differs by grade span), a supplemental grant for disadvantaged students (low-income, English Learner, and foster care students), and a concentration grant for districts that serve above-average proportions of disadvantaged students.

The budget also provides $27 million to help districts administer new state tests. With the transition to the Common Core State Standards, new computer-based assessments are currently being field tested in California. Students take the new tests on computers linked to the internet, and the additional funding would help schools develop higher speed internet connections.

One final note: Governor Brown proposes to establish a Proposition 98 reserve in the future to protect against volatility in General Fund revenues. His proposed constitutional amendment creates a rainy day fund that would help buffer schools from the extreme boom and bust cycle of state revenues.

In addition, the governor appears to have established an approach to K-12 budgeting that helps protect state and school district finances from uncertainties in the estimating process. Because revenues—and school funding levels—are estimated a year in advance, the amount of resources available to schools changes throughout the year as the revenue picture becomes clear. To reduce risks to state and district budgets, the administration: ·

  • Makes relatively conservative revenue forecasts. Moderating the administration’s revenue estimates helps prevent the state from spending more than Proposition 98 requires. If actual revenues are higher than assumed, it makes the additional Proposition 98 funds available on a one-time basis to retire debts or pay for other one-time costs. ·
  • Builds more flexibility into annual K-12 budgets. The administration, for instance, proposes to spend about $1.5 billion in ongoing 2014–15 funds to retire one-time K–12 debts that were created during the recession. These one-time expenditures help protect district budgets, because debt repayment can be downsized if Proposition 98 funding does not reach its expected level, while district base budgets are left intact.

This approach requires restraint on the part of state policymakers and local educators. But the dividends—repaid debts and one-time funding for things like computer infrastructure—are also becoming more evident.

Helping English Learners Succeed

Sacramento is paying considerable attention to California’s English Learners, who make up nearly 25 percent of the state’s public school students. A major overhaul last year of the way schools are funded now assigns more money for every student identified as an English Learner. This year, some policymakers would like to remove restrictions on bilingual education. Other legislation would seek a statewide policy about how to reclassify English Learner students as proficient in English—a process that varies widely across school districts.

PPIC Research Fellow Laura Hill and PPIC Bren Fellow Julian Betts addressed this topic in their recent report titled Pathways to Fluency: Examining the Link between Language Reclassification Policies and Student Success. The report, which was presented a public event in Sacramento last week, explores academic achievement among students who have been reclassified under the different policies in place at the Los Angeles and San Diego school districts.