March 2015 – Public Policy Institute of California

Drought Watch: The End of the Rainy Season

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

California’s rainy season is pretty much over. Most years, 85% of the wet season’s rain and snow has already fallen by late March. While rain often falls in April and May, it is rarely enough to make a big difference in the overall water picture, and the forecast is now quite dry.

That means California’s water managers now have a good idea how much water will be available in the state’s reservoirs, snowpack, and groundwater basins.

The news is not heartening. While parts of the north coast did fairly well, the rest of California did not. The Sierras received about half of annual average precipitation. And as the record warm temperatures of last year have persisted, the snowpack is at an all-time low (now 8% of average). As California’s struggling ski area operators know all too well, most precipitation fell as rain, rather than snow.

Statewide, reservoir storage is about half of capacity. However, the almost non-existent snowpack provides no prospect for improvement in storage this spring—something water managers count on in most years.

This fourth consecutive dry year have led to some dire, even apocalyptic predictions, including that California will run out of water within a year. While managing this drought will be difficult, even painful in some regions, the state is not going to run out of water and there is no need to panic. Rather, prudent adjustments to water scarcity that began earlier in the drought will continue and intensify. These include:

Increased urban conservation. Californians cut their per capita water use last year, but they can do more. In particular, there is ample room to reduce outdoor watering, which makes up roughly half of urban water use. The State Water Resources Control Board has tightened restrictions on outdoor water use, and many municipalities will increase their conservation efforts.

Increased water trading. Robust water markets, involving willing sellers and buyers, are an effective way to manage scarcity. The Australians found this to be helpful during their crippling Millennium Drought. California’s water market helped many farmers keep their orchards alive in 2014. This year, cities with dwindling drought reserves are also looking to buy water – as illustrated by the recent deal between Sacramento Valley rice farmers and Metropolitan Water District, Southern California’s large water wholesaler. As demand for trading increases, so will water prices.

Increased use of groundwater. Groundwater pumping has grown since the drought’s onset, but California’s reserves of groundwater remain large—particularly compared to surface storage. Groundwater will continue to make up shortfalls in surface water this year. Unfortunately, past failures to manage groundwater have lowered the water tables in many basins, making water more expensive to extract and often requiring drilling new, deeper wells. The new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act will eventually address this problem, but not soon enough for this drought.

In short, California is not running out of water, just cheap water. A fourth consecutive year of drought will make both water scarcity and management possibilities increasingly apparent.

Testimony: Four Important Questions about Voting in California

PPIC research fellow Eric McGhee was invited to testify about voter turnout in California last week before a joint hearing of the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments and Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting. Here are his prepared remarks.

California’s voter turnout in 2014 hit record lows in both the primary and the general elections. I’d like to put that turnout in broader context, and give some thoughts on potential solutions. In doing so, I’m going to briefly answer four questions:

Who votes, and who doesn’t?
What does California’s turnout look like over time and compared to the rest of the country?
What are some of the reforms that have been tried in the past, and how well have they worked?
What are the other possible reforms out there that have yet to be tried in California?

Who votes and who doesn’t?

California’s electorate does not look like the state as a whole. Compared to non-voters, California’s voters are older, whiter, more educated, less likely to have recently moved, more likely to be homeowners, and more partisan. They are also wealthier, though most of the difference in income between voters and non-voters is a function of the more powerful effects of other factors such as age and education. And, PPIC research by Mark Baldassare has shown that non-voters have different opinions on important policy issues. In particular, they tend to be more supportive of a larger role for government.

These differences are very similar to what one would find in the rest of the country, but California’s profile on all of these dimensions is at one extreme. The state is relatively young, relatively mobile, with an especially large non-white population.

Beyond all these demographic and attitudinal issues looms citizenship. Citizenship is a much more important issue in California than in other states, given the large non-citizen population we have here. It particularly affects the Latino and Asian American communities. That said, it is becoming a less important issue over time, since virtually all the population growth in these communities is now among native-born citizens.

What does California’s turnout look like over time and compared to the rest of the country?

California’s turnout has dropped between 10 and 20 points in the last 30 years. It’s important to break this problem into two separate parts: the registration rate among those who are eligible to vote, and turnout among the registered population. Identifying which is the bigger problem will help us know which problem to target first.

Compared to other states, California’s registration rate has been slipping. By contrast, turnout among the registered has been consistently higher than in other states, and has been holding up better over time. These numbers are not yet available for 2014, and California’s turnout will likely be low relative to other states that year. But overall, California lags other states in registration, not turnout.

That’s not to say that turnout among the registered is without problems. It has been declining in absolute terms, at least outside of fall presidential elections. But if we are going to tackle one problem in particular, registration may be a good place to start. In addition to being a problem more specific to California, it may be more amenable to broad reform. It amounts to little more than an administrative hurdle, and as detailed below, it is certainly the easiest one to take permanently off the table through more sophisticated data management.

What are some of the reforms that have been tried in the past, and how well have they worked?

In a report last year, I explored the effect on turnout and registration of two reforms to the registration process that California recently adopted to make the process easier. The first was online registration, which allows voters to conduct the entire registration process online without ever needing to mail in a paper form. The second is conditional registration, which allows voters to register and vote simultaneously in a single trip to the county registrar, and to do so after the official close of registration, up to and including Election Day. Online registration was used for the first time in the middle of the 2012 campaign season, so my analysis was about evaluating a reform that had already been implemented. Conditional registration, on the other hand, will probably not be implemented until 2017, so my analysis was about examining the effect of similar reforms in other states.

Online registration was wildly popular, accounting for over half the new registrants in the last month of the 2012 fall registration period. However, the results of the analysis of online registration suggested that the vast majority of these people likely would have registered to vote anyway. They probably got excited by the new system and registered earlier than they might have, but that didn’t significantly increase the total volume of registrations.

Conditional registration (often called “same day” or “Election Day” registration in other states) has been heavily used in the other states that have adopted it. There are often huge surges of use right before Election Day. As with online registration, however, almost all of these people would have registered anyway. The conditional registration system simply allowed them to register later. In terms of getting new voters to the polls, the policy has had more mixed results, with high-end estimates of an increase in turnout of about 4 percentage points.

The challenge for California is that even if all the users of conditional registration would have registered anyway, there will still be a lot of those people. That makes for a late surge in registrations that must be processed, and on a scale that other states have not faced. Elections are administered at the county level, and California has six of the 20 most populous counties in the country. Los Angeles County by itself is 40 percent larger than the largest state that has adopted a conditional registration system up to this point (Wisconsin). Thus, California will have to handle a significant portion of its conditional registrants through a small number of very large counties. The state needs to be prepared.

What are the other reforms that have yet to be tried?

Probably the biggest reform to registration that has not yet been tried in California is automatic registration. This is a system where voters who engage with government in some other capacity (usually by getting a drivers’ license at the DMV) and provide enough information to be registered are put on the voter rolls by default. They would then be given the option to remove themselves if they wanted but would otherwise remain registered.

Though automatic registration would be a big change, it is not quite as radical as it sounds. The state already tries to give residents the option to register at the DMV and other agencies (not always with perfect success), so automatic registration would just be a more insistent and systematic form of the same policy. Moreover, the drivers’ license and voter registration lists are on the verge of being linked already, thus easing many of the potential technical hurdles.

Would automatic registration solve California’s turnout problem? No, because low registration is about more than administrative hurdles. Many of the people who do not register are expressing a deeper disengagement from politics and public life. For example, North Dakota has no voter registration at all but falls far short of 100 percent turnout. Thus, automatic registration would need to be followed up with constant engagement to truly leverage the new system. What it would do is ensure that something closer to 100 percent of California citizens would be available for engagement without any further administrative steps along the way.

Automatic registration could also help the state deal with the surges of late registrants it will likely see under the conditional registration system. With voters added to the rolls throughout the year as they acquired or updated drivers’ licenses, there would be far fewer voters who would need to use the conditional registration system at the eleventh hour, making it more manageable for county registrars.

In the end, automatic registration is only one potential solution to voter turnout problems in California. Many others can and should be considered, and after all stakeholders have weighed in, an automatic registration itself may not prove to be the best fit for California. A bill proposing an automatic registration system has been introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, so there will be a real opportunity to have a robust debate on the issue. That alone will be a healthy step forward for California.

Video: PPIC Statewide Survey Briefing

As discussions continue in Sacramento about drought relief, funding for higher education and transportation projects, and an extension of Proposition 30 tax increases, PPIC surveyed public opinion on these and many other topics. At a briefing last week in the capital, PPIC researcher Jui Shrestha provided the survey findings. Among the key points:

Two-thirds of Californians say the regional water supply is a big problem, and two-thirds say people in their part of the state are not doing enough to respond to the drought.
While most adults say that spending money on the maintenance of California roads, highways, and bridges is very important, there is little support for increasing the gasoline tax or vehicle registration fees to do so.
Half of Californians favor extending the Proposition 30 tax increases, and about a third favor making them permanent.

Caring About Delta Levees During a Drought

When the sun is shining and our rivers are low, we tend to forget about levees. However, you can’t ignore the 1,100 miles of levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These levees—dikes, actually—have high water against them 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. They protect the islands of the Delta from flooding that would occur daily because island elevations are well below sea level—more than 25 feet below in some places.

This video is a simulation of what would happen if a severe earthquake hit the western Delta, causing widespread failure of levees. The simulation is a worst-case scenario: failure occurs in the summer when freshwater inflow from rivers is low. (The most recent large flooding in the Delta took place on a clear day in June 2004.) As the water drains from the channels into the islands, it pulls saltwater into the Delta from San Francisco Bay. This renders the water too salty for use by the 25 million people more than 3 million acres of farms that rely upon it.

The management of Delta levees has been a policy challenge for many decades. Most levees are managed by local reclamation districts. They are of varying quality. Yet these levees affect the reliability of water supplies from the Delta. They protect lives, property, and important infrastructure, and they control river and estuarine habitat.

In the 2009 Delta Reform Act, the legislature assigned the Delta Stewardship Council the task of determining how to invest state funds in the levees. As highlighted in our recent report Paying for Water in California, the cost of improving Delta levees ranges from $1.6–$2.4 billion, while available state bond funds total less than $400 million. Recognizing that needs far outstrip available resources, the council has chosen to set policies for prioritizing investments. This is both necessary and fraught with controversy because it ultimately determines whose needs are to be met and whose will not.

PPIC, with our research partners at the UC Davis Center for Watershed Sciences, have published numerous assessments of this problem. Over the next few months we plan to post summaries of this work to help inform policymaking and prioritization. Come rain or shine, flood or drought, Delta levees—and the resources they protect—need the state’s attention.

Climate Change and California’s Future

Mark Baldassare, PPIC’s president and CEO, opened the PPIC conversation on climate change this week with these remarks. We invite you to watch the video of the event.

California has found its way to broad, bipartisan agreements on environmental issues for decades. The state has been a leader in efforts to improve air quality, conserve open space, and protect the coastline. The public has typically embraced these “green” policies. In a PPIC poll in 2014, majorities of Californians said that “stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost,” while fewer said they “cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.” Despite increasing evidence that climate change poses a major threat here and abroad, the federal government and international community have been slow to act. California, on the other hand, has been responding since the early 2000s with some of the most far- reaching policies in the world.

Most notably, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joined Democratic legislators and signed AB32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act—in 2006. It committed California to reverse the trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions and to lower those emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. It was hailed as a watershed moment in California history that would also have far-reaching consequences nationally and internationally.

In the years that followed, the governor and legislature worked to comply with the law by adopting a number of major policy changes. These include efforts to expand renewable energy, change community development, and create a market price for carbon through a cap and trade program. In 2010, a campaign led by Democrat Tom Steyer and Republican George Shultz persuaded voters to soundly reject Proposition 23, an initiative to suspend AB32. Voters then passed Proposition 39 by a wide margin. This 2012 initiative closed corporate tax loop holes to pay for clean energy projects.

The state’s response to climate change has had consistent support from a broad coalition that cuts across racial/ethnic, economic, and regional groups—while the amount of support has varied along partisan lines. In the PPIC annual environment survey last July, 68 percent of adults said they favored the emission goals identified in AB32. Strong majorities have expressed support for the law since we first asked about it in 2006. Sixty-five percent of Californians are also in favor of the state government making its own policies to address global warming—separate from the federal government. Majorities have expressed this preference since we first asked about it in 2005. And sixty-one percent say that the state government should act right away to reduce global warming rather than wait for the economy and job situation to improve.

One reason the state’s response to climate change has had such strong support is the high level of concern about the issue among Californians. In a PPIC poll last December, 76 percent of adults said that global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious threat to the economy and quality of life in California. More than seven in 10 have expressed this view since we started asking this question in 2005.

Another explanation for Californians’ support is the perceived economic benefit of the state’s policies. In the PPIC poll last December, 43 percent of adults said that California’s efforts to reduce global warming will result in more jobs for people around the state. In contrast, 29 percent said the state’s effort will not affect job numbers, and only 21 percent said it will result in fewer jobs. Californians have always been much more likely to say that taking action on global warming will result in more jobs— rather than fewer—since we began asking this question in 2010.

Today, California climate change policy has reached another pivotal moment. Last year, the state Air Resources Board declared that California is now on track to achieve its greenhouse gas emission goals by 2020, just five years from now. Earlier this year, Governor Brown and state legislators proposed that California recalibrate its climate change policies with a new set of goals reaching farther into the future. As before, the new goals are ambitious and contentious.

In January, Governor Brown proposed three new goals to be accomplished in the next 15 years: increase the amount of electricity produced from renewable sources from one-third to 50 percent; reduce today’s petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent, and; double the energy efficiency of buildings and make heating fuels cleaner. SB 350 by Senators Kevin de Leon and Mark Leno reflects the governor’s new goals for 2030. And SB 32 by Senator Fran Pavley would set California’s greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2050 at 80 percent below the level reported in 1990.

There is much to consider in setting these goals and we know that change of this magnitude is not easy. Governor Brown said in his inaugural address: “Taking significant amounts of carbon out of our economy without harming its vibrancy is exactly the sort of challenge at which California excels. This is exciting, it is bold, and it is absolutely necessary if we are to have any chance of stopping potentially catastrophic changes to our climate system.”

California can benefit from the innovation, technologies, and new jobs generated by the state’s leadership on climate change policy. Achieving the goals, however, will also have costs and require lifestyle changes around transportation, employment and housing decisions.

The climate change policies in place today and the proposed goals will affect every Californian. To talk about some of the experiences so far and the issues raised by a new set of climate change goals, we have put together a bipartisan panel that reflects several key perspectives. The panel includes state and local government representatives, as well as business interests from different sectors of the economy.

The state’s climate change policies are among the most difficult and important issues to surface this year. We hope that a public dialogue about the challenges that we face, the goals under consideration, and the trade-offs involved in upcoming policy choices will help California to achieve its brightest future.

Delivering on the Promise of Online Education

Zócalo Public Square, which combines live events and journalism, asked PPIC senior fellow Hans Johnson and other experts to answer this question: How will technology—from massive open online courses and web-based textbooks to big data collection—change universities? Here is his response. Visit Zocalopublicsquare.org to read what others had to say.

A popular prediction is that new technology will revolutionize higher education, making traditional brick and mortar colleges obsolete. Certainly, new technology offers tremendous potential—democratizing access to college, enhancing instruction, and improving graduation rates, to name a few. But before we jump on the bandwagon of declaring a new era in higher education, we should assess the degree to which new technology can address fundamental challenges in higher education.

Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is to ensure that higher education serves as a ladder for economic and social mobility rather than simply reinforcing economic and class divides. By that standard, we can dismiss most Massive Online Open Courses offered in conjunction with the nation’s elite universities. Most of those courses are taken by people who already have a college degree, and the vast majority of students who enroll in such courses never finish them.

A different experiment in online learning, and one that serves hundreds of thousands of students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, is taking place at California’s community colleges. With over one million course enrollments, California’s community colleges are the largest public provider of online education in the country. They are the gateways to higher education for low-income and nontraditional students—those with jobs and family obligations.

At the Public Policy Institute of California, we examined student success in online courses in the state’s community colleges. In our study, we found that course completion and passage rates are substantially lower in online courses than in traditional ones, even though students in online courses tend to be more advantaged and academically prepared. Moreover, gaps in academic performance that we see among demographic groups in real-life classrooms are exacerbated in the online setting.

What these early findings demonstrate is not failure, but the need to improve both technology and the way it is used in instruction. If we can get it right at the community colleges, we can deliver on the promise of online education.

Testimony: Low-Income Students and Financial Aid

As the legislature considers a number of bills aimed at increasing access and affordability of public higher education, the state assembly’s subcommittee on education finance invited PPIC to testify this week. The focus was the unmet financial aid needs of low-income college students. Hans Johnson, PPIC senior and Bren Fellow, presented data from the recent PPIC report Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California, which details the importance of federal and state grant aid in ensuring that higher education remains a ladder of economic opportunity for all Californians.

Johnson noted that as the state has cut funding for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), tuition has increased and grant aid has become increasingly important to help students afford college. Research has also shown that grants and scholarships help students persist in their education and enables students to focus on their coursework and complete college faster. UC and CSU remain less expensive options for low-income students in terms of “net price”—the cost of attending college after accounting for federal, state, and institutional aid—than non-profit and for-profit private colleges. However, students whose family incomes are $30,000 or less still pay nearly a quarter of their incomes, or $8,000 per year, to attend a public four-year college.

Improving college access and completion is vital to California’s economic well-being, and aid for students has become increasingly necessary. The legislature’s attention to this issue comes at a time when 60% of California high school students qualify for free and reduced price lunch and three-quarters of California’s low-income college freshmen are enrolled in a UC or CSU.

The Special Election and the Top-Two Primary

Two Democrats are heading into a runoff in a big political fight for a seat in the state senate, representing the wealthy bedroom communities of the far eastern Bay Area. The contenders are Susan Bonilla, a Concord assemblymember, and Steve Glazer, the mayor of Orinda. The race was held under the rules of California’s new top-two primary, but the role of this new system in producing the outcome is more complicated than it might seem.

Four Democrats and one Republican were on the ballot for this 7th Senate District seat, which became vacant when Democrat Mark DeSaulnier successfully ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. The race boiled down to a pitched battle between the three best-known Democrats: Joan Buchannan, a former Alamo assemblymember; Bonilla; and Glazer. The fourth Democrat received far less attention and the lone Republican actually withdrew from the race and endorsed Glazer (though her name remained on the ballot). At the time of this writing, Glazer has finished first with 33 percent, followed by Bonilla with 25 percent, and Buchannan with 23.

A goal of the new top-two system is to encourage candidates to build centrist cross-party coalitions. All candidates were on the same ballot, and voters could choose any candidate they liked, regardless of party. The top two vote getters, also regardless of party, now advance to a runoff campaign. (Technically, this special election uses a variant of the top two, in which a runoff occurs only if none of the candidates receives at least 50% of the vote. But that did not end up being a factor in this race.)

Steve Glazer fits well in this new system. He has taken a more business-oriented perspective that has put him at odds with many in the party’s pro-union establishment. With the endorsement of the only Republican in the race, he has been empowered to draw Republican voters to his banner. Moreover, the 7th Senate district is in an area with politics only slightly left of center, with more Republican voters than is typical for the Bay Area. As if that weren’t enough, counts of vote-by-mail ballots just before Election Day suggested Republicans were turning out to vote in disproportionate numbers, making them even more critical to the outcome.

However, it is important to emphasize the precise way in which the top two impacts this race. The open ballot—with all candidates listed regardless of party—is not new to special elections such as this one. Special elections have long had an open ballot, so even before the reform the District 7 candidates would have been free to reach across party lines.

The key difference comes now that the first round is over. Under the old special election system, the top vote-getters within each party would advance to a runoff election. Under the new system, the top two candidates advance even if these candidates hail from the same party. Thus, the May match-up between Glazer and Bonilla would have been impossible before the top two.

The irony is that in this particular case, the same-party race has thrown an extra hurdle in the way of the more moderate candidate. Under the old system, Glazer would have advanced to a runoff against a Republican who is no longer in the race. Now he must fight another Democrat to secure his place in the legislature.

But that doesn’t mean the top two has necessarily hurt Glazer’s chances. The same candidates may not have made the same decisions under the old system. Michaela Hertle, the Republican, might not have withdrawn from the race and endorsed a Democrat, because as the only Republican, she would have been guaranteed a spot in the runoff. Glazer might not have run for fear that he would not finish a clear first among all the Democrats. Though one can never be certain about any particular race, there is evidence that the top two has discouraged candidates like Hertle—those who hail from the major party with fewer registrants in a district—and encouraged more candidates from within the district’s dominant party. So while the top two didn’t enable cross-party coalitions in this race, it may have altered the landscape in other ways.

At any rate, there is no doubt that the top two has changed the contest moving forward, since Glazer and Bonilla never would have faced each other in the runoff without it. The ultimate test of the system lies with the outcome of this same-party race, and the political leanings of the person who wins it.

Drought Watch: Priorities for Cities and Farms

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

A spate of recent news articles have reinforced what most Californians already know: the state is locked in a grim drought, with unusually warm temperatures and near-record low snowpack. Since this is the fourth consecutive dry year, reserves are low and water scarcity will be acute in some farming regions and watersheds.

In our new report, Policy Priorities for Managing Drought, we highlight four areas that need reform to reduce the economic, social, and environmental harm from drought in California: 1) improving water use information; 2) setting clear goals and priorities for public health and the environment; 3) promoting water conservation and more resilient water supplies; and 4) strengthening environmental management.

The third item on this list – promoting conservation and more resilient supplies – refers to steps needed to improve the ability of both urban and agricultural areas to weather droughts. California’s urban water agencies are already in much better shape than they would have been, thanks to significant investments since the early 1990s in conservation, local storage, alternative supplies like highly treated wastewater, and new connections between neighboring water systems. But cities need to redouble their efforts. In particular, they can do much more to reduce landscape irrigation, which still accounts for half of urban use. Financial incentives like rebates for replacing turf with more drought-tolerant plants can help. Yet to encourage widespread change in habits, cities also need to adopt water rates that send a strong signal to customers who are using too much water outdoors.

For California’s farmers—who require large volumes of water for irrigation during the dry growing season—the options are somewhat different. Investments in more efficient irrigation technology provide numerous benefits: higher quality produce, lower use of pesticides and chemicals, and higher yields. But in most places this technology doesn’t free up new water. That’s because the water not consumed by crops in less efficient irrigation systems either returns to rivers or recharges groundwater basins, where it gets reused. For farmers, one of the best drought adaptation tools is a well-functioning water market, which can help get water from willing sellers to willing buyers.

The market helped many farmers keep their orchards and vineyards alive last year, and it will help this year too. (And as the recent purchase of some water by Southern California’s large urban water wholesaler demonstrates, the market can also help cities bolster critical drought reserves.)

Yesterday the State Water Resources Control Board reauthorized—and amped up—some urban outdoor water use restrictions as a way to push the conservation efforts of local water agencies. In our report, we suggest the board could also take steps to promote the water market. In particular, some local irrigation districts that have abundant supplies still restrict sales outside of their districts, even when farmers in these districts would be willing to sell. Just as excess landscape watering in cities can be considered unreasonable during droughts, prohibiting water trades could also be considered unreasonable. Allowing scarce water to move to where it’s most needed would help all of California get through this drought.

Video: Implementing California’s School Funding Formula

The success of California’s new funding formula hinges on whether school districts can improve achievement for students, especially those who are high need. New PPIC research focuses on the issues raised so far by implementation of the new formula—a process that will take eight years.

Last week, Laura Hill, PPIC senior fellow and one of the reports’ co-authors, provided an overview of PPIC’s findings in Sacramento. Her presentation was followed by a panel discussion that looked at the challenges and opportunities presented by the new funding formula. Panelists were Carolyn Chu of the Legislative Analyst’s Office; Jonathan Raymond, president of the Stuart Foundation and former superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District; PPIC research associate Paul Warren; and Riverside County school superintendent Kenneth Young. Patrick Murphy, PPIC research director moderated.

The PPIC reports are listed below:

Implementing California’s School Funding Formula: Will High-Need Students Benefit?

Implementing Local Accountability in California’s Schools: The First Year of Planning

Low-Income Students and School Meal Programs in California