Month: May 2014

California’s Jail Construction Needs

The governor’s proposal to spend $500 million for local jail construction raised many questions at a hearing Thursday of the Senate Budget Subcommittee on public safety. In testimony to the committee, PPIC research associate Brandon Martin answered many of the questions from a report released this week, Key Factors in California’s Jail Construction Needs. The report describes the increase in jail crowding since responsibility for tens of thousands of offenders was shifted to counties. The report also looks at the age and condition of jails and the challenge of housing a changing inmate population. Here are his prepared remarks.

Good afternoon. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to comment. My name is Brandon Martin and I am a research associate at the Public Policy Institute of California. For those who are not familiar with PPIC, we are a nonpartisan, independent research institute focused on major policy issues in California. PPIC does not take positions on legislation.

PPIC released a report yesterday—entitled Key Factors in California’s Jail Construction Needs—that focuses on three factors: recent changes in jail population, aging jail facilities, and long-term jail capacity needs.

  • Our study describes the impact of realignment on jail populations. As of June 2013, the average daily population in jails statewide was just under 82,000, or 105 percent of the maximum number of inmates that the state’s county jails were designed to hold, which is around 77,000. This represents an increase of nearly 10,000 inmates since September 2011. Thirty-six counties had an average daily jail population that exceeded 90 percent of rated capacity, twenty-one of those counties operated over 100 percent of rated capacity.
  • Our study also looks at the age of local jail facilities and finds that nearly half—or 56 of California’s 123 county jails—were constructed in the 1970s or earlier. County officials point out that older facilities can be quite limited in their ability to provide medical and mental health care, reentry programming, or recreational services, particularly for longer-term inmates.
    • Our calculations indicate that it could cost more than $3 billion (not including bond financing costs) to replace the 18 oldest facilities, which were built in the 1950s or earlier.
  • Looking to the future, our study outlines the impact of recent investments on jail capacity. As a result of AB 900 and SB 1022, we estimate the number of counties operating above rated capacity is projected to decline from 21 to 15 by 2020.
  • But we also anticipate that statewide population growth will bring crowding conditions to current levels and beyond between now and 2040, especially in fast-growing inland counties such as Fresno, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Joaquin.
  • We estimate that it could cost about $1.2 billion (not including bond financing costs) between now and 2040 to add enough capacity—4,300 beds—to allow jails statewide to operate at the challenging level of 100 percent of rated capacity.

Given the magnitude of California’s current and future jail challenges, our analysis suggests the need for a thoughtful combination of additional jail construction—with a focus on old and ineffective facilities—and policies and practices that reduce incarceration.

Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

The Power of the Primary Voter

Voters are starting to think seriously about whether or not to vote on June 3—in fact, the first vote-by-mail ballots are already being returned. And because of a recent change to California’s primary system, this decision about voting will be more important than ever.

The voters who turn out in California’s primary elections have typically been different than the ones who vote in the fall. They have been older and less diverse, with a smaller share of Latinos and Asian-Americans. They have also tilted Republican in most cases. In short, the primary electorate is the California we once were, not the California we have become.

These differences mattered in the past, but not as much as they might have. Any party that placed a candidate on the primary ballot would be guaranteed to have a candidate on the ballot in the fall. Indeed, that was the point of the primary: to choose one person to represent each party in the general election. Now California has a radically open “top two” primary. Voters can vote for any candidate they like, and the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the fall election. That means a party is no longer guaranteed a spot in the final round.

Before the top two, the differences between the primary and the general electorate could affect the kind of candidate nominated by each party, but not whether the party nominated a candidate at all. Today, the primary electorate has much more say over what the general election will look like.

When the state first used this system in 2012, almost one-fifth of the races ended up with same party contests in the fall. This included Congressional District 31, where two Republicans faced off in a competitive district that otherwise leaned Democratic. If the general electorate had turned out in the primary, it almost certainly would have been enough to change District 31 into a race between a Democrat and a Republican—and the Democrat would have had a decent chance of winning. That’s a problem. Of course, this was just one district. But a bias in the primary electorate could create—or prevent—a same-party contest in a statewide race as well.

What’s the solution? Every primary system runs some risk of strange results, but the top two is especially aggressive at closing off alternatives. It might make sense to offer a sort of “safety valve”—the option of a third candidate in the fall in cases where there was enough demand for one. California used to allow both independent and write-in candidacies in the fall, but the top two banned both. The legislation removing these options was passed with a simple majority in the legislature, so it would be relatively easy to change. The bar for such safety-valve candidacies could be set high enough to ensure they would remain rare. (Of course, there could always be legal challenges, but the merits of that approach are better left to lawyers to determine.)

The top two offers a lot more choices to those who show up to vote in the primary. We should be careful about giving these voters too much power to then dictate the choices for everyone else.

Engaging Parents in School Funding Decisions

A policy enacted last year—the Local Control Funding Formula—changes the way the state allocates money for K–12 schools. The new system is designed to address the needs of disadvantaged students. It also gives local districts more authority over spending decisions and holds them accountable for results. Beginning this year, school districts must develop accountability plans every three years describing how they will meet the goals and priorities of the new system.

Districts are required to seek input from parents while developing their accountability plans, the first of which must be adopted by July 1. The requirement to involve parents is loosely defined. At a minimum, districts must hold a public hearing prior to plan approval and convene a parent advisory committee. And districts are supposed to ensure parent representation of the groups the new formula is designed to help—English Learners, foster children, and lower-income students. But the policy does not outline how the feedback will be gathered and used.

In the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, the vast majority of Californians, including 85 percent of public school parents, consider parent involvement in the development of these plans very important.

How effective have districts’ outreach efforts been so far?

Many districts have already held meetings and forums to seek parent input, but according to our survey, 45 percent of public school parents say they have not received information from their child’s school or school district about how to become involved (52% say they have received information). This is despite nearly all saying they are at least somewhat interested in becoming involved (53% very interested, 38% somewhat interested).

Still, there is some evidence in these early stages that outreach attempts to parents of disadvantaged students are working. Latino public school parents (67% of whom took the survey in Spanish) are much more likely than whites to say they have received information about how to become involved (61% to 42%). Similarly, immigrant parents (61%) are much more likely than U.S.-born parents (43%) to say they have received information. And the share reporting that they received information grows as household income levels decline.

An overwhelming majority of parents would like their youngest child to earn a college degree or graduate degree, including at least seven in 10 Latinos (70%), immigrants (77%), and parents earning less than $80,000 annually (75% under $40,000, 82% $40,000 to under $80,000). These parent groups are also among the most likely to believe the Local Control Funding Formula will improve the academic achievement of English Learners and lower-income students. Engaging these key groups in designing ways to meet the central goal of the Local Control Funding Formula (namely, to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and others) is critical—especially given the educational hopes they express for their children.

Chart source: PPIC Statewide Survey: April 2014.

Drought Watch: Keeping Better Track of Water

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

In most years, the arrival of May signals the end of the rainy season. As California transitions from hoping for rain to managing its absence, it is appropriate to assess how we have handled this drought so far. In a recent blog post, we, along with our colleagues at UC Davis, UC Hastings, and Stanford University, identified several key lessons from the current drought. One of these is the need to modernize the way we track water supply and use.

To illustrate, just this past week the State Water Resources Control Board released a series of graphs that summarize the gaps between projected supply and demand for this year. These graphs form the basis for determining who may be told to curtail the amount of water they take out of rivers when supplies are scarce. The take-away from these projections is that significant shortfalls will occur starting this month—when the irrigation season starts in earnest. Under California’s water rights system, irrigators holding junior water rights—i.e., rights established more recently—could be completely cut off in most areas. It also appears that unprecedented cuts will occur for senior water rights holders as well.

Although these demand and supply curves appear precise, the state board is handicapped by a lack of good information on water supply and use. To manage the drought more effectively, the board needs better information in two key areas.

First, there have been major advances in technology that can be used to measure flow. These include sophisticated remote sensing techniques, computer modeling, and sensor networks. Although there has been progress, the state has been slow to adopt these new technologies. For many rivers the board, and its partner the California Department of Water Resources, are, at best, making educated guesses. In addition, the state uses protocols for managing this information that were adopted in the early 20th century. In a drought there is need for real-time information and forecast-based projections to manage diminishing supplies.

Second, who uses how much water, and when, is acutely important when river flows are low, because a handful of users can have great impact. Although reporting on water use has improved since legislation passed in 2009, the board has not been in a position to verify the accuracy of self-reporting by thousands of water rights holders, including the oldest, most senior water right holders. Statewide, there is no comprehensive understanding of how and when water rights holders make use of alternative supplies, including the state’s overdrafted groundwater basins.

Since the economic, social and environmental consequences of water management during a drought are especially high, people understandably want to see the board administering diversion curtailments with precision and in real time. But during the wet periods, the legislature and state agencies tend to ignore this issue because there is more water to go around and little public pressure to correct information gaps. Then, when the wet inevitably turns to dry, there are insufficient time and resources to address the problem.

Droughts provide the political and economic motivation to get our water management system into better shape. Step one would be to invest in modernizing the way we measure, forecast, and administer water use—hopefully before the next drought.

Trouble Ahead for Local School Ballot Measures?

This commentary first appeared on EdSource.org on April 30, 2014.

The elections this year offer the first statewide look at Californians’ willingness to raise revenue for their local schools since passage of Proposition 30, the tax initiative to benefit education that voters passed in November 2012. While it’s too early to know how many local school districts will test the waters by placing a construction bond or parcel tax on the ballot, there are undercurrents in our new survey that spell trouble ahead for local school ballot measures. In short, the public’s sense that schools are in crisis has diminished.

Our annual PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and Education shows that likely voters view fiscal conditions in education as generally improving. The proportion who say that the state budget situation is a “big problem” for California’s K–12 public education has dropped by 10 points—from 72 percent to 62 percent—between April 2012 and today. More importantly, the proportion of likely voters saying that the level of current state funding for their local public schools is “not enough” has also dropped by 10 points between April 2012 and today—from 59 percent to 49 percent. In other words, the likely voters who currently view state funding of their local schools as problematic now make up less than a majority.

In our recent poll, 55 percent of likely voters would vote yes if there was a local school bond on the ballot—just barely meeting the minimum passage level. By contrast, 48 percent of likely voters would vote yes on a local school parcel tax—falling far short of the two thirds needed to pass.

It is important to note that likely voters who are public school parents are bucking these statewide trends: a majority of them view state funding for their local public school as inadequate, and over 60 percent say they would support a local school bond and a local school parcel tax this year. But our poll finds that public school parents make up less than 30 percent of the likely voters who will determine the ballot outcomes.

Since 2001, the statewide passage rate for local school bonds has been 81 percent and for local school parcel taxes, 60 percent, as noted by CaliforniaCityFinance.com and EdSource. This year, those rates may fall. Alternatively, there may be fewer local school ballot measures this year as funding proponents focus on a smaller set of school districts with voter profiles that offer favorable odds for passing these measures. For instance, our poll finds majority support for local school bonds and local school parcel taxes among Democratic, Latino, lower-income, and Bay Area likely voters.

Meanwhile, some legislators have proposed lowering the vote threshold needed to pass these taxes from two-thirds to 55 percent, which requires changing Proposition 13. But since the Democrats lost their supermajority when three of their senators were suspended, the legislature is much less likely to send this change to the voters for approval. Californians are not inclined to make this change anyway. The proportion of likely voters who say that this change to Proposition 13 is a good idea has declined—from 46 percent in April 2011 to just 39 percent today.

It is possible that voter concern about school funding needs will surface later this year, as school districts implement two dramatic changes: the Common Core Standards in the classroom and the Local Control Funding Formula, which provides more money for districts with higher proportions of English Learners and lower-income students. These changes could offer two new avenues to engage voters about the need for local school funding. For now, though, we will be watching for signs that Proposition 30’s passage will make it harder for local school ballot measures to succeed in 2014.