Month: February 2015

Video: Briefing Focuses on Health and Nutrition Safety Net for Children

More than half of all California children participate in at least one health or nutrition program designed to help low-income residents, according to a newly released PPIC report. At a briefing in Sacramento on Friday, PPIC research fellow Laurel Beck described the report, Enrollment in Health and Nutrition Safety Programs among California’s Children, that she co-wrote with PPIC senior fellow Caroline Danielson and research associate Shannon McConville.

Beck said that increased resources to administer assistance programs had raised enrollment in the programs—Medi-Cal, CalFresh, free and reduced-price school lunches, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). As of 2012, nearly all low-income children up to age four were enrolled in at least one of these programs. But the researchers found significant variation across programs and counties. They concluded that better coordination could further the state’s goal of full enrollment of eligible children.

Local Decisionmaking in California’s Schools

California schools and districts are in the early stages of implementing the state’s new school finance system, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). The new system involves much more than a new way of allocating state money to schools. At the heart of LCFF is the handing over of decisionmaking power to local districts—as well as responsibility for meeting the state’s educational goals. Results from the California sample of the national Schools and Staffing Survey (1999‒2011) point to some of the challenges the state will have in implementing the new system.

Goals. LCFF prioritizes student achievement, as measured by scores on standardized tests, performance in Advanced Placement exams, and college and career readiness. However, the Schools and Staffing Survey indicates that principals put more weight on basic literacy than on advanced skills such as academic excellence and college readiness. In other words, principals seem to be setting a lower bar, and aligning their goals with the state’s priority areas is going to be a challenge.

  • More than half (54%) of principals see building basic literacy skills (reading, math, writing, speaking) as their most important goal. This view is slightly more prevalent among principals of elementary schools, schools with high percentage of minority students, and urban schools.
  • College and career readiness—one of the eight LCFF priority areas—is not a big priority for principals, even in middle and high schools. Just 2 percent of principals consider college preparedness to be their most important goal and just 4 percent prioritize occupational or vocational skills.

Parental involvement. The law requires that parents be involved in LCFF planning and implementation. However, very few schools involve parents in their decisionmaking processes. A real cultural shift will be required to engage parents in a meaningful way.

  • Most schools rely on open houses, parent-teacher conferences, and special subject-area events to communicate and interact with parents.
  • Very few schools involve parents in school instructional planning—for example, developing learning activities or soliciting feedback on curriculum. And few schools involve parents in governance—through PTA or PTO meetings or parent booster club—or budget decisions. Urban schools are the most likely to engage with parents, but parental engagement is going to be a significant challenge, particularly in large and rural schools.
  • Only half of schools have staff assigned to work on parental involvement—this is more common in schools with high percentages of minority students and schools in urban areas.

LCFF is an ambitious overhaul of California’s school finance system, designed to help districts meet clear educational goals. As the results of the Schools and Staffing Survey show, successful implementation is going to require major cultural changes in schools throughout the state.

TOP CHART SOURCE AND NOTE: Schools and Staffing Surveys (1999‒2011).”Secondary” includes both middle schools and high schools. High minority schools have student populations that are more than 75 percent minority; in high-poverty schools, more than 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced-price meals. Bottom chart source: Schools and Staffing Survey (2011).
BOTTOM CHART SOURCE AND NOTE: Percentages reflect principals’ responses to the following question: “What percentages of students had at least one parent or guardian participating in the following events?”

Drought Watch: Getting More Pop per Drop

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

With the state still facing drought conditions, the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held a hearing yesterday titled “Water: State and Local Funding Relationships and the 2015-16 Governor’s Budget.”

PPIC senior fellow Ellen Hanak testified to the panel about the recent history of the state’s water finance. (Here is her slide presentation.) She noted that California has been relying increasingly on state bonds to finance water projects, using six bonds to raise almost $20 billion between 2000 and 2006, in addition to the $7.5 billion bond that voters passed last November.

She recommended that the state gather more information on water use so that water can be fairly allocated when supplies are low. She also said the state Fish and Wildlife Department is doing a good job managing ecosystems during the drought but that California could benefit from a more strategic plan to do so, as Australia adopted during its recent drought.

Noting that the state needs to find ways to stretch scarce water supplies, Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said he was going to adopt a line from Ellen’s testimony as the “mantra” for the committee: “greatest pop per drop.”

Drought Watch: Water Not Wasted to the Sea

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

Northern California got a good soaking last weekend, with more than 10 inches of precipitation in many parts. This translated to healthy amounts of water flowing off the hillsides. Much of it is headed into our large reservoirs where—after three years of drought—there will be plenty of capacity to store it for later use for cities, farms, and the environment. But a significant amount made it into rivers in the Sacramento Valley. From there, that water is on its way to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, San Francisco Bay, and ultimately the ocean.

To many, the notion of water to the ocean is akin to water wasted. It is perceived as serving no valuable purpose before mixing with salt water and being rendered useless.

This perception is understandable if we limit our thinking to benefits from direct use of water: manufacturing, industry, drinking, sanitation, or growing gardens and crops. But outside of improving habitat for native species, there are multiple indirect benefits derived from water currently running into the Delta.

The most conspicuous is improved water quality. January’s record low precipitation left the Delta unusually salty. A salty Delta poses problems for the more than 25 million people and more than three million acres of irrigated agriculture that make use of it. Salt is also a problem for farmers in the Delta who rely on local water for irrigation.

To keep the Delta fresh enough for exports and uses in the Delta during dry periods, water has to be released from upstream reservoirs. And a great deal of that released water has to pass through the Delta and into the Bay to keep salt water from encroaching on the Delta. The water used to create this hydraulic barrier cannot be recovered.

A wave of water coming down the Sacramento River freshens the Delta, naturally pushing the salty water out. Depending upon how we operate the export pumps, the effect of this flush can last a long time and allows dam operators to husband their stored water for use later in the year.

Last year, we had three of these flushing events in the late winter and early spring that cleaned up a very salty Delta. These events created benefits—by reducing dam releases necessary to keep things fresh—that lasted into the summer.

Indirect benefits of this water do not end at the Delta. Shorelines and marshes throughout the San Francisco Bay are eroding due to a lack of sediment. This is part of a long-term trend with many causes, but is largely due to the trapping of sediment upstream by dams and levees and a lack of sufficient river flows to move it out of the Delta and into the Bay.

Additionally, as the more than 20 operators of wastewater treatment plants in the Bay Area know, water quality is a major—and potentially very costly—issue of concern, particularly in the South Bay. Freshwater inflows to the Bay help improve water quality and help the Bay meet state and federal standards.

So when you see the brown water from this latest storm moving down the Sacramento River, out through the Delta into the Bay, keep in mind that it is hardly wasted, but rather is creating indirect but vital benefit for a broad range of users.

How California Reduced Its Prison Population

After years of struggling with a 2009 federal court order to reduce the population in the state’s overcrowded prisons, the inmate population has reached the target of 113,700 (based on current capacity), roughly a year ahead of schedule. A look at historic prison and jail data reveals that this milestone has been achieved to a significant extent by adding capacity and simply shifting inmates to institutions not subject to the court order. As a result, cost savings from the various efforts appear lacking so far. The state’s spending on corrections is now at a historic high.

Since reaching its peak in 2006 of about 163,000, the institutional prison population has dropped dramatically, by slightly more than 49,000. The court order mandated that inmate population be reduced to 137.5 percent of design capacity, or the number of inmates the facilities were intended to house.

Realignment, the state’s biggest correction reform, was a response to the court. It shifted incarceration of many lower-level felons and parole violators from state prison to county jails, beginning in 2011. However, a significant share of the prison population—about 18,000 inmates—declined before realignment. Most of this drop happened between 2009 and 2011 and was driven by policy changes such as SB 678, which created financial incentives for counties to lower the number of felony probationers they sent to state prison. Realignment then led to the largest decline, about 28,000, in the state’s institutional prison population. The post-realignment drop occurred in the first year of the reform.

The prison population did not start to decline further until November 2014, when voters passed Proposition 47, which classifies a number of drug and property offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies. Since then, the institutional prison population has dropped an additional 3,000, which pushed the number of inmates below 137.5 percent of design capacity.

The state has met the crucial federally mandated target, but not—as reform proponents hoped—by a major reduction in costly prison incarceration. Here’s a rough breakdown of how this was achieved.

First, the decline of about 18,000 inmates in the institutional population prior to realignment was partly accomplished by housing about 9,000 offenders in private prison facilities out of state—a practice that continues on about the same order of magnitude. Second, since the implementation of realignment, the state has also incarcerated an additional 3,900 inmates in public and private facilities in the state. California has also opened up a new state prison health care facility in Stockton with a capacity of almost 3,000 inmates. Third, since realignment shifted responsibilities of many lower-level felons and parole violator to the counties, the county jail population has increased by about 11,500, as of June 2014 (the numbers may have come down some since then because of Proposition 47). In sum, roughly one half of the reduction of the institutional prison population since its 2006 peak was achieved by increasing capacity and simply shifting inmates to other facilities.

California has indeed seen a significant decrease in the reliance on incarceration over the last decade through policies like SB 678 and realignment, as well as initiatives like 2012 Proposition 36 (which revised California’s “Three Strikes” law) and Proposition 47. Our total incarceration rate has dropped from about 702 per 100,000 residents in 2006 to about 568. Unfortunately this is not reflected in the state’s expenditures. In fact, spending on corrections is now at a historic high. A look at corrections spending going back to the 1970s shows a long-term increase. In the current budget year, the state is spending more than $12 billion on corrections. In other words, meeting the federally mandated target does not mean that California has solved its incarceration problem.

Research shows that incarceration at current levels is not a cost-effective way to prevent crime. Clearly we need to refine our crime prevention strategy and look more closely for effective alternative approaches to manage public safety.

Commentary: Set Water Priorities to Prepare for Drought

This commentary was published today by the San Francisco Chronicle.

There are still two months left in the rainy season, but all indications are that California’s drought is extending into a fourth year — even with the soaking Northern California is expecting this weekend.

Already, state officials are making tough choices about priorities for water use. Nowhere is this more difficult than managing water for the environment . . .

(Continue reading on sfchronicle.com.)

Video: January PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

State residents are feeling more optimistic than they have in years—about California’s elected leaders, the direction of the state, and their own economic futures. Dean Bonner, associate survey director, presented these and other key findings at a briefing last week in Sacramento. In addition to asking about government and fiscal issues, the January survey gauged opinions on four important issues being debated at the state and federal level. Among the findings:

  • Crime, police, and race relations. A solid majority of Californians say the police are doing either an excellent job or good job controlling crime in their communities. But blacks are much less likely than others to hold this view.

  • Water and drought. A majority of Californians say the supply of water is a big problem in their region, and most say the state and local governments are not doing enough to respond to the current drought.

  • Health care reform. A record-high 51 percent of Californians have a generally favorable view of the 2010 health care reform law, while 41 percent have an unfavorable view.

  • Immigration reform. A solid majority of residents support President Obama’s executive action to shield as many as 4 million immigrants from deportation, while about a third are opposed.

The Debate Over Extending Proposition 30

One of the most controversial issues that the governor and legislature face in 2015 is what to do about the Proposition 30 tax increase. This citizens’ initiative passed with a 55% yes vote in November 2012. The governor says this tax increase is meant to be temporary. But others say that the state budget situation has improved because of Proposition 30, and it could deteriorate if we allow the sales and income tax increases to fully expire in 2018. In the most recent PPIC Statewide Survey, 52% of likely voters would favor a Proposition 30 tax extension. We found identical results in our December 2014 poll. A slim majority of support suggests that a tax extension is in the realm of the possible but far from a sure thing.

Why the sense of urgency? Tax proponents say that the November 2016 presidential election offers the last chance for a high turnout among voters who are likely to support a Proposition 30 tax extension before its sunset in 2018. Our most recent poll confirms this view. Support for the tax extension falls short among the likely voter groups with the highest propensity to vote: Republicans (30%), whites (49%), homeowners (48%), age 55 and older (50%), and those with annual incomes of $80,000 or more (45%). Support is highest among these lower-propensity likely voter groups: Democrats (69%), Latinos (68%), those under age 35 (61%), renters (61%), and those with annual incomes under $40,000 (59%). As these numbers suggest, it would be a riskier proposition to wait until the 2018 gubernatorial election for a tax extension vote.

Many observers think that the voters will take their cues from Governor Brown if they are asked to weigh in on this issue. After all, it was the governor who brought this tax measure to the voters when the legislature failed to act. In our latest poll, most likely voters—58%— approve of the governor’s job performance, and most who approve of Brown also favor a tax extension (69%). Also, those who prefer Governor Brown’s approach to the state budget over their Democratic and Republican legislators overwhelmingly favor a tax extension (75%). In sum, Brown’s position on the tax extension will matter. But no one is certain whether he will actively support or openly oppose a tax extension in 2016.

Some are looking to tweak the current Proposition 30 tax increase to gain more favor with the voters. There are calls, for example, for the creation of another temporary tax increase instead of making the Proposition 30 increases permanent. That may help gain voter support, but we have no PPIC polling data suggesting that voters supported Proposition 30 because it was temporary. Others argue that the tax on earnings over $250,000 should continue while the one quarter cent sales tax is allowed to expire. This might well improve the chances of passage and is consistent with our past polls, which show majority support for raising taxes on wealthy Californians and majority opposition to a state sales tax increase.

What is missing from this political calculus? A selling point of the Proposition 30 tax increase was its beneficiary: K-12 education. In our past polling, Californians have ranked K-12 education as their highest spending priority. However, relatively few (correctly) perceive that K-12 education is now the largest area of state spending.

Our recent poll shows that the knowledge gap is wide when it comes to the state budget: 57% of likely voters say that K-12 education is their highest priority for state spending, but just 19% are able to cite K-12 education as the largest area for state spending today. Among the likely voters whose top spending priority is K-12 education, 54% are in favor of a tax extension. Among those who think the state’s top spending category is something other than K-12 education, 56% are in favor of a tax extension. But among those who accurately say that K-12 education is the state’s top spending area, just 35% favor extending Proposition 30.

Our survey also asked what is the one issue facing California today that is most important for the governor and legislature to work on this year. Among the likely voters who named K-12 education, 65% are in favor of a Proposition 30 tax extension. In sum, the fate of a Proposition 30 tax extension in 2016, as was the case for Proposition 30 in 2012, will likely depend on how the voters perceive its effects on K-12 education.

The November 2016 presidential election offers the best chance to include the most voters in this contentious issue. And, as our recent poll shows, Californians want a role in fiscal decisionmaking. An overwhelming 76% of likely voters say they prefer that voters make some of the decisions about spending and taxes at the ballot box, while just 21% say that they want the governor and legislature to make all of these decisions. Why not give the voters a chance to hear the pros and cons in a debate that can also help increase knowledge about the budget and give them the role they want to determine California’s future?