This commentary was published today by the Washington Post.
President Obama’s proposal to make community colleges free is a valiant effort to address the rising demand for skilled workers throughout the nation and to improve college access for low-income students. As states consider his proposal, they would be wise to look to California . . .
(Continue reading on washingtonpost.com.)
Today California’s Little Hoover Commission held its first public hearing on the nature and quality of interactions between state government and the public. The commission invited Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, to testify about the public’s trust in government. Here are his remarks.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your important and timely discussion about improving the delivery of public services and better engaging Californians with their state government. I have been asked in my testimony to set the stage for your work by helping you to better understand current public sentiment toward state government.
Last year, voter turnout in California reached a historic low: 30.9 percent of eligible adults in the November general election and 18.4 percent in the June primary. Millions of Californians who could register to vote did not, and millions of Californians who could vote opted out. These numbers clearly point to a California public that is disconnected from their state government today.
This is consistent with what we have observed in the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey since we began monitoring Californians’ attitudes toward government in the late 1990s. We have been asking questions about government trust focused on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency at the local, state, and federal levels. And we have found that Californians’ distrust in state government predates the low voter turnouts of the 2014 election.
My purpose is to provide information on the magnitude of public distrust in state government today, the differences among demographic groups, and how current levels of distrust compare with the past. I will also contrast opinions about government at the local, state, and federal levels. Lastly, I will talk about the implications of our findings for state government leaders.
The source of most of my comments about trust in state government today is the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future report from December 2014, which I coauthored with PPIC colleagues Dean Bonner, Renatta DeFever, Lunna Lopes, and Jui Shrestha. Our latest findings on trust in state government are based on interviews with 1,704 adult residents throughout California from November 10 to November 17, conducted in English or Spanish and by landline or cell phone with a sampling error of ± 3.7 percent.
We asked our tracking question on government effectiveness, “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government in Sacramento to do what is right?”—and only one in three Californians said just about always (7%) or most of the time (25%). Two in three Californians said that you can trust the state government to do what is right only some of the time (61%), or volunteered that they trust it none of the time (5%). These perceptions are shared across regional and demographic groups. Republican and independent voters express more distrust in state government than Democratic voters do. In our polling a decade ago, the results for this question were similar. However, perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (3% always, 15% most of the time, 67% most, 12% none).
Responding to our tracking question on government responsiveness, 67 percent of California adults said “the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” while only 28 percent said that “it is run for the benefit of all of the people.” Majorities across regional and demographic groups perceive the state government as pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and Republican and independent voters are more likely to express this negative view than Democratic voters are. Again, the results were similar a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (75% big interests, 17% all of the people).
In our tracking question on government efficiency, 54 percent of adults said they “think the people in state government waste a lot of the money that we pay in taxes,” 35 percent said “people in state government waste some of it,” and 8 percent said they “don’t waste very much of it.” Majorities across most regional and demographic groups hold the perception that the people in state government waste a lot of money, while Republican (78%) and independent voters (60%) hold this view much more often than Democratic voters (46%) do. Once again, the results were similar in our polling a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (66% a lot, 26% some, 6% don’t waste very much).
We asked the same three questions on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency about the federal government in our May 2014 poll and about local government in our May 2011 poll. State government fares only slightly better than the federal government in ratings of trust. Local government fares the best of all levels. Californians are much less likely to say their local governments “waste a lot of the money paid in taxes” or are “pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” They are slightly less likely to say that they can trust their local governments “to do what is right only some of the time or none of the time.”
In summary, the negative perceptions about the effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency of state government are consistent over time and widely held in the public today. What are the implications of our findings for state government leaders? First, Californians will continue to value the citizens’ initiative process as they seek to have a say in the major decisions made by their state government. Second, many Californians will be skeptical about the need for higher state taxes and more state revenues, given their level of distrust in their state government. Third, proposals to move authority and control to the local level will resonate with Californians, given their higher levels of distrust in state government. Last but not least, civic disengagement will continue to be a problem. We may reach new lows in voter participation given the level of distrust in government.
I’d like to close on a more hopeful note. This commission’s work comes at a time when we are seeing some improvements in all three indicators of trust in state government. In the wake of a growing economy and better fiscal situation, the approval ratings of the governor and state legislature are also on the rise, as our survey results show. The voters have also approved a series of major legislative and fiscal reforms in recent elections. In our polling, the public is signaling their early support for local control of school funding and state-local corrections realignment.
It will take time to see whether these reforms and changes satisfy a distrustful public. I’m optimistic that we are poised to make gains in trust in state government over the next few years, and this is an area where California could lead the nation. New efforts toward building trust in state government will pay dividends in the form of citizen engagement. They are important for the future of all Californians.
The tuition increase recently approved by the University of California Regents has ignited a debate about how the state allocates money for higher education. A brief look at the history of state funding can provide some much-needed perspective.
Each higher education system—UC, the California State University, and the community colleges—receives substantial funding from the state. Most of the remaining funds for instruction come from tuition paid by students. (In this analysis, we look at allocations from the state General Fund and property taxes so that we can compare institutions across time.)
Since 1965, the share of higher education funding provided directly by the state has shifted from the four-year systems to the community colleges. In the mid-1980s, the community colleges received about a third of the state allocations to public higher education institutions. In 2014‒15, the community colleges got more than half of the pie. Meanwhile, the share allocated to CSU and especially UC has been shrinking. UC’s share fell from 38% in 1965 to 24% in 2014‒15, and CSU’s share declined from 25% to 22%. The governor’s proposed 2015‒16 budget includes a funding increase of $843 million to the state’s public colleges and universities—71% ($600 million) of which would go to the community colleges.
The large increase in state allocations to community colleges is linked to increased enrollment. But enrollment has increased just as much at UC and CSU. Indeed, on a full-time equivalent basis, UC, CSU, and the community colleges each serve about the same share of the state’s public higher education students today as they did 50 years ago. So what explains the shift in the share of funding from UC and CSU to the community colleges?
The short answer is Proposition 98.
After Proposition 13 passed in 1978, the state’s community colleges—which unlike UC and CSU relied partly on property taxes—saw a sharp reduction in their share of state and local support. Ten years later, voters passed Proposition 98, which guaranteed K–12 schools and community colleges a minimum percentage of the General Fund and property tax revenue. Proposition 98 guarantees that K–12 schools and the community colleges get about 40% of these allocations—and about a tenth of that share goes to the community colleges. Some have argued that Proposition 98 acts as a funding ceiling for K–12 schools and community colleges, but it also serves as a floor.
UC and CSU lack the same funding protection. While many budget areas outside of higher education are at least partially protected by dedicated funding streams, court orders, or matching federal funds, UC and CSU are vulnerable when state revenues decline. The universities have faced disproportionately large cuts in their general fund allocations during times of economic hardship. From this vantage point, a funding floor—even one that doubles as a ceiling—is preferable to a funding drop-off.
The three higher education systems also receive indirect forms of state support such as Cal Grants, fee waivers, and middle-class scholarships. Grant aid has increased for students at all institutions of higher education in California. Our best estimates suggest that community college students receive slightly more of these state funds (41% of the total in 2011‒12), than UC students (40%) and much more than CSU students (18%).
The debate over higher education funding could benefit from a clearer understanding of how the pie is divided. But the most important issue for the state’s young people is that the pie is not keeping pace with demand. Our four-year colleges have record numbers of applicants and the shares of students who are academically qualified to attend them have increased. The future prosperity of Californians and their state depends on access to higher education. To address these issues, policymakers need to focus on improving vocational programs and pathways from community colleges to four-year colleges and improving access and enrollment at UC and CSU.
After a day of discussions about the drought, PPIC senior research fellow Ellen Hanak, was asked to sum up.
“This drought, as challenging as it was—as it still is—has really provided the opportunity for folks from different agencies that have different management objectives to work together to make the most out of the little water that we’ve had available.”
“It was not as bad as it could have been,” she said. “And I think that that is going to continue.”
The keynote speakers and panelists at PPIC’s Managing Drought conference this week emphasized that there is much to do to make California more drought resilient. Climatologist Mike Anderson’s description of the state’s future made the challenges clear. Panelists throughout the day discussed the difficult tradeoffs California has yet to make in managing urban and agricultural scarcity, conserving ecosystems, and allocating water.
But the discussions also highlighted a path forward. Keynote speaker Jane Doolan described lessons California can learn from Australia’s experience with its millennium drought. Our legislator panelists pointed out that California has begun to make reforms in water management that—with diligent oversight—the state can build on.
We invite you to watch the videos of the Managing Drought conference. We hope you find the discussions constructive and useful.
The Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee held its first hearing of the new legislative session yesterday. As a reminder that California is never more than one big storm away from flood problems—even when reeling from a multi-year drought—the hearing’s topic was flood management. A particular focus was the state’s role in supporting flood protection infrastructure using funds authorized by Proposition 1E, a $4.1 billion general obligation bond approved by state voters in November 2006.
I provided the committee with an introductory overview of California’s challenges in addressing growing flood risk. I began with some summary information on the extent and nature of the risk: Roughly 21 percent of California’s population lives in areas vulnerable to flooding, with 4 percent at extreme risk. This is a problem that affects all regions of the state—especially the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and coastal areas. Risk is growing as the population grows, putting more people in harm’s way. A rising sea level and a changing climate—with warmer winters and more variable conditions—are also increasing California’s vulnerability to flooding.
California has a vast flood management system, overseen by federal, state, and local agencies. But this system faces significant challenges–including a large investment gap, with spending lagging far behind needs. In addition, state taxpayers face potentially high liabilities from levee failures within the Central Valley since a 2003 court ruling (the Paterno decision). And while improving flood infrastructure such as levees can reduce the frequency of floods, it doesn’t eliminate risk. If new development is allowed in places with the relatively low level of protection required by federal standards (against the “100-year flood”—a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year), the total economic and social risk of flooding can actually increase. Flood insurance is a way to cushion against this remaining risk, but few Californians take advantage of this option.
In a recent study, PPIC took a closer look at the flood investment gap. We found that although the recent infusion of state bond funds has helped, California’s flood investments are still seriously lagging. California needs to raise an additional $800 million to $1 billion per year to undertake these investments within a reasonable time frame (25 years). Federal contributions are small (just $250 million/year in recent years), and likely to decline in the future. So the gap will need to be filled by state and local sources. In the very near-term, the state can step up with remaining bond funds. The governor’s budget proposes spending the remaining $1.1 billion in Prop 1E funds next year. Proposition 1—the new state bond approved by voters in November 2014—provides an additional $395 million for flood protection. Beyond this, the solutions lie in making it easier for local agencies to raise funds and identifying new state funding sources.
To reduce risk, the state should also consider extending reforms enacted for the Central Valley in 2007—which set higher protection standards for urban areas—to other flood-prone regions. One of the best defenses against flooding is land-use planning that keeps people out of harm’s way.
Four key legislators yesterday discussed their water policy priorities for the current session, agreeing that their top one is overseeing the implementation of Proposition 1, the state water bond passed in November. At a Sacramento gathering sponsored by PPIC and focused on managing drought, the four also agreed that the bond is just a down payment in addressing a long list of water policy challenges.
Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, who represents parts of southeastern Los Angeles County, noted that the water bond’s lack of earmarks, or “pork,” helped secure the voters’ approval—and will require strong legislative oversight to make sure the money is well spent.
Echoing the theme of legislative oversight, Assemblymember Marc Levine, who represents parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, said it is important to review past investments—such as Proposition 1E, passed in 2006 to fund flood control projects—to make sure that money is spent strategically and builds voters’ trust in government.
Asked about other policy priorities, Senator Lois Wolk, who represents much of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, mentioned water infrastructure. It is wearing out, expensive to replace, and the federal government is no longer financing it. That makes funding a challenge for the state.
How can the state build drought resilience? Senator Jean Fuller, who represents parts of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino Counties, said ensuring a predictable water supply is critical.
“People do not know—especially the farmer—when they’re going to get their water, if they’re going to get it in August, if they’re going to get it in July, how much it’s going to cost at that point.”
By building more certainty in the system, water markets can be managed for the benefit of all, she said.
Hundreds of people attended the PPIC event Managing Drought, and hundreds more watched the online webcast. PPIC will post videos of the full event soon.
Californians begin the new year divided in their view of the state. According to the December 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey, half of California adults think the state is headed in the right direction (50%) and a similar proportion (52%) expect the state to have good economic times in the next 12 months. More than a third (37%) think California will be a better place to live in 2025, and a similar proportion (37%) believe children growing up in the state will be better off financially than their parents.
While most Californians responded to these questions with a mix of optimism and pessimism, we found some interesting differences between the 14% of Californians who gave positive responses to all four questions—let’s call them the optimists—and the 13% who expressed consistently negative views—the pessimists.
Demographically speaking, the optimists tend to be younger, less educated, and have lower incomes than the pessimists. Optimists are also less likely to have been born in the United States.
Politically, optimists are more likely to be Democrats and pessimists more likely to be Republicans. Optimists are spread across the ideological spectrum, while pessimists tend to be ideologically conservative. Optimists are also far less likely to be registered voters than their pessimistic counterparts.
The differences between the state’s optimists and pessimists are particularly stark when we examine their attitudes toward government. Even though optimists are less likely to be registered to vote, they are more trusting of government than pessimists: 63% of optimists believe that state government is run for the benefit of all the people, while 93% of pessimists think it is run by a few big interests. Moreover, optimists would prefer to pay higher taxes and have a state government that provides more services (71%), while pessimists favor lower taxes and fewer services (69%). More specifically, optimists are more likely than pessimists to support extending Proposition 30 tax increases (68% of optimists favor an extension, 67% of pessimists oppose) and are more likely to say they would be willing to pay more taxes to fund higher education (61%, compared to 23% of pessimists).
Will California’s trusting optimists become more electorally involved? Or is the record-low voter turnout in last November’s election a sign of increasing disengagement? Certainly, one of the state’s key challenges is to get more voters—both optimists and pessimists—to the polls.
This is part of a continuing series on the impact of the drought.
California is entering a fourth year of drought. The welcome, wet conditions that appeared earlier this winter gave way to dryness during the latter half of December. Although forecasts suggest that wet weather may return later this month, the long-term moisture deficit is unlikely to be erased, leaving the state to continue grappling with water scarcity.
As unpleasant as droughts are, they offer an opportunity to assess how well prepared California is for managing its water resources. The usual approach to learning from droughts is to conduct assessments after the drought ends. Unfortunately, once the rains come—as they certainly will—the pressure to prepare for the next drought is greatly reduced.
Recognizing the need to learn from drought while it is ongoing, PPIC will hold a half-day conference on January 12 in Sacramento. The event, supported by the California Water Foundation, will include two keynote addresses—one on current drought conditions by the state climatologist and another from a member of the Australian National Water Commission on how that country managed an unprecedented, 13-year-long drought. In addition, there will be a conversation with four members of the California State Legislature on legislative priorities for addressing droughts. Finally, panels of state and local leaders will focus on institutional responses to the current drought and proposals for policy reforms in three areas:
Managing urban and agricultural water scarcity. To date, the consequences of the latest drought have varied greatly across California’s geographical regions and economic sectors. Impacts in large urban areas have been modest, while many smaller community water systems have faced significant shortages. Agriculture has been hit particularly hard, but the intensity of the crisis has varied depending on geography and availability of groundwater. The panel will explore wide-ranging proposals to reduce the effects of future droughts on urban and agricultural sectors.
Conserving ecosystems during drought. Acute water scarcity has posed a major challenge for the state and federal agencies charged with managing ecosystems that support fish and waterfowl. Difficult decisions, including temporary reductions in environmental standards and trade-offs between species, were made “on the fly” with limited scientific information. The panel will review lessons learned during this drought and consider new approaches.
Water allocation during drought. The state’s century-old law that governs water rights played a central role in managing the drought during 2014. For the first time since 1977, the State Water Resources Control Board had to restrict surface water use by some water rights holders. In addition, the board had to make tough choices about how to manage water for the environment and how to allocate water to protect public health. The panel will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to water rights, along with alternative approaches that might reduce conflict during drought.
The conference is now fully booked, with more than 400 participants registered to attend. But you can follow the proceedings via live webcast. PPIC will also post videos of the sessions after the event.
