March 2019 – Public Policy Institute of California

Helping Community College Students Succeed

California’s community colleges are implementing new policies in developmental (or remedial) education that could improve completion of transfer-level courses for tens of thousands of students every year. Recently passed legislation should result in the vast majority of entering community college students bypassing developmental education and enrolling directly into transfer-level courses in English and math. Many of these students will be provided with concurrent remedial support to help them succeed—namely, co-requisite courses, which feature group work to reinforce difficult concepts, just-in-time remediation, and other activities.

These reforms mark a dramatic change from the traditional approach, which required most students to complete developmental English and math before they could take transfer-level courses. In fact, as of the 2017–18 academic year only half of students enrolling in an English course for the first time and about one-third of first-time math students were able enroll in a transfer-level course. Previous PPIC research shows that students who start college in developmental education are significantly less likely to successfully complete transfer-level courses.

The new policies will be implemented systemwide by fall of 2019, but some colleges began offering co-requisite courses ahead of schedule—as early as 2015–16. Implementation has been faster in English than math: as of 2017–18, 33 of the state’s 115 community colleges were offering English co-requisites, while only 16 offered math co-requisites. This is not surprising, considering that co-requisite support in math must be tailored to the transfer-level courses required for different majors (e.g., statistics, business calculus, pre-calculus, college algebra, math for liberal arts). Between 2016–17 and 2017–18, enrollment in English co-requisites more than doubled (to 8,200), while enrollment in math co-requisites increased 36% (to 1,300).

A recent PPIC report found that students enrolled in co-requisite courses are significantly more likely to successfully complete transfer-level courses in math and English than students who started in traditional prerequisite developmental education courses. And they are as likely as those who do not receive co-requisite support to complete transfer-level courses within a year. This is notable because students who take transfer-level courses without co-requisites have been identified as college ready.

The early evidence on co-requisites is promising. As colleges move into the full implementation phase, ongoing research can help them understand what happens as they broaden access to transfer-level courses to a diverse group of students, what types of concurrent support work best, and how co-requisite students perform in subsequent college-level courses.

Testimony: Special Education Finance in California

Paul Warren, research associate at PPIC, testified today (March 28, 2019) before the Senate Education Budget Subcommittee, as part of a hearing on district financial conditions. Here are his prepared remarks.

The committee asked PPIC to help them understand why district special education costs are rising so quickly.

First, some background. The AB 602 formula provides about $500–600 in state special education funds per student in each district, based on average daily attendance (ADA). The number of students with disabilities in a district does not affect state funding amounts. Each year, that amount is increased by the change in ADA and by a cost-of-living adjustment.

In the PPIC report, Special Education Finance in California, my colleagues and I identified several reasons why AB 602 funding has not kept pace with district costs:

Changes in the rate and type of disabilities. We estimated that these changes increased annual district costs by around $1.1 billion. The state formula is currently based on average district costs from the late 1990s.
- The share of students identified with disabilities increased by 5.7 percent from 2010–11 to 2015–16.
- Disabilities that are, on average, expensive to address have increased. Autism, in particular, continues to increase as a share of students with disabilities.
Growth in preschool for children with disabilities under the age of 5. This population grew about 10 percent from 2005 to 2015. The AB 602 formula does not adjust district funding for changes in this group, as pre-school children with disabilities do not count toward ADA.
Higher district salaries since the Great Recession. The large LCFF increases during the economic recovery shaped salary negotiations. But AB 602 did not adjust to the higher costs for special education teachers and administrators.

In a report from last year, Revisiting Finance and Governance Issues in Special Education, we provide two options for modifying the AB 602 formula:

Increase AB 602 by the same percentage amount as LCFF funding. This makes sure that state funding for special education increases at the same rate as LCFF.
Increase AB 602 by the actual increase in special education costs. This would hold the state share of special education costs constant over time.

We also recommend caution when considering proposals to base state special education funding on counts of students with disabilities. Differences in district identification practices affect the share of students identified for special education services. We found that the county with the lowest rate of students with disabilities reported that about 8.8 percent of students were in special education. In contrast, the county with the highest rate reported that about 17.6 percent of students were in the program. This disparity strongly suggests that district practices affect district caseloads, and basing state funding on the number of students with disabilities could create financial incentives to identify more students.

Our two options would avoid this identification problem while better aligning state funding for special education with LCFF and district costs.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues.

Can Pretrial Decisions Be Improved?

Controversy over the cash bail system in California has led to a number of recent legal and legislative actions that may spell the end of cash bail in the state. If that happens, risk assessment systems would take on heightened importance in decisions about pretrial detention. At stake are concerns about equity, consistency, and transparency in the pretrial process.

Californians who have been arrested but not yet convicted are 84% more likely to be detained than defendants in other states. California’s high bail amounts contribute to this high rate. Of the defendants who are released on bail, nearly all secure their release via bail bondsmen, who require a nonrefundable deposit equal to 10% of the bail amount. The average bail amount in California in 2015 was $50,000—five times higher than the national average. Many poor and middle class individuals lack the means to secure pretrial release through bail—one study found that 40% of Americans do not even have $400 on hand to cope with an emergency.

State and federal courts have begun to address this inequity. Last year, a state appellate court ruled that defendants should not be held before trial solely because they cannot afford bail. More recently, a federal judge ruled against San Francisco’s use of bail schedules, which set bail amounts. The judge found that although bail schedules seem scientific and transparent, bail amounts are set inconsistently, their origins are unclear, and they do little to ensure public safety.

Additionally, judges can override recommended bail amounts based on their assessment of a defendant’s likelihood of misconduct—arrest or failure to appear in court—if he or she is released during the pretrial period. And they can do so without reporting why. The result has been inconsistency in pretrial detention decisions for defendants who committed similar crimes.

Concerns about inconsistency and lack of transparency motivated the recent passage of Senate Bill 10, which eliminates cash bail and mandates the use of risk assessment tools. These tools use mathematical models to predict pretrial misconduct. Pretrial detention recommendations based on these predictions are supposed to guide judges’ pretrial detention decisions. SB 10 will be subject to a November 2020 referendum—but it’s worth noting that 49 of California’s 58 counties already use some type of risk assessment tool.

Risk assessment tools are not without controversy. They have been challenged as unfair and can only surmount this challenge if they are used within transparent and consistent risk assessment systems. Importantly, judges will still be able to override recommendations from those systems.

To ensure more transparency, it will be critical to collect information about why judges override such recommendations. Only with court data that comprehensively records information used to make pretrial detention decisions can the essential work of ongoing evaluation take place. These evaluations are key to determining how well risk assessment systems protect individuals’ liberty while also ensuring public safety—and how potential sources of unfairness in them can be identified and addressed.

Rising Seas Bring Rising Water Management Challenges

Sea level rise—driven principally by melting continental ice and expansion of the oceans as they warm—is a significant threat for those living along the coast. Adapting to increases in coastal erosion and flooding—and managing the broad impacts of sea level rise on the state’s water systems—will be expensive and disruptive for millions of Californians.

A recent study by the US Geological Survey took a sobering look at future risks from rising seas. The authors describe how storm surge, very high tides (popularly known as king tides), and large waves during storms can amplify the effects of sea level rise. They simulated coastal erosion and flooding over the next two centuries and found there could be dramatic increases in damages during modest storms, and catastrophic flooding during rare, large storms. These impacts are projected to appear by the middle of the 21st century, at a scale likely to significantly affect the state’s economy.

Beyond costly efforts to protect against coastal erosion and ocean flooding, coastal areas will also need to manage increased inland flooding. Large storms can amplify the effect of rising seas by bringing greater storm surge, particularly if these coincide with king tides. Storm runoff flowing down coastal creeks will meet rising waters caused by storm surge and tides, exacerbating flooding. This issue is particularly acute in parts of the Bay Area (including much of Silicon Valley) and low-lying areas in Southern California. Major new efforts to manage runoff and protect existing homes and businesses will be needed.

Sea level rise will also affect water management in other ways. One area is wastewater treatment. Throughout coastal California and particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, wastewater and stormwater treatment takes place in facilities that are currently at or near sea level. The Bay Area alone is home to 30 such facilities that are vulnerable to damage by rising seas and storms.

Water supply will also be affected. Many coastal aquifers will see increases in salinity as sea levels rise and storms push saltwater farther inland. But the most significant impact on supply is likely to be associated with changes in the Sacramento‒San Joaquin Delta.

The Delta lies at the head of the San Francisco Bay estuary and the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. More than 25 million Californians and 3 million acres of farmland rely on the Delta for a portion of their water supplies. These exports are managed by large state and federal projects that pump water from the southern Delta.

Sea level rise affects the Delta in two ways. First, to keep its waters fresh enough so that cities and farms can use it, a certain amount of fresh water has to flow out of the Delta and into the San Francisco Bay. If the outflow is insufficient—whether due to drought, reduced inflows from upstream water use, or high export pumping—tides push saltwater into the Delta, making its water unusable.

The second way sea level rise will affect the Delta concerns the 1,100 miles of levees that line its channels. Levees hold water back from Delta islands, whose lands are now well below sea level due to sinking soils. Failure of these levees—particularly in the western Delta—can lead to changes in the way tides circulate water in the Delta. These changes amplify the increases in salinity from sea level rise alone; together, they put additional pressure on water supplies.

Addressing the many effects of sea level rise on California water management requires extensive planning and costly investments in infrastructure. The US Geological Survey study shows that these impacts are not in some distant future, but are likely to become significant in just a few decades. The good news is that state and local officials are starting to work on this problem, which will take many years to address.

Video: A Conversation with San Francisco Mayor London Breed

As part of our Speaker Series on California’s Future, PPIC invites elected leaders from across the political spectrum to participate in public conversations. The purpose is to give Californians a better understanding of how our leaders are addressing the challenges facing our state.

As a mayoral candidate, London Breed promised to focus on homelessness and affordable housing—two major challenges for San Francisco and for California as a whole. Not surprisingly, these issues took center stage in her conversation with PPIC president Mark Baldassare earlier this week.

“It is no secret that homelessness is one of the biggest challenges that’s facing our city, and that also comes with the need to build more housing,” said Breed. “I’ve been on a mission! I hired a housing delivery director—someone whose sole purpose is to cut back on bureaucratic red tape that gets in the way of building housing.”

Breed stressed the need for new approaches to behavioral health issues that complicate homelessness: “We have to think about this challenge differently and we have to make hard decisions.” For example, she favors strengthening conservatorship laws. She acknowledged that conservatorship for mentally ill adults is “very controversial.” But, she added, “our jails are being used as mental health facilities, and that’s not a solution.” She is also pushing for safe injection sites, which can provide substance abuse treatment when people are ready to seek it. “Treatment on demand is something we have to start looking at.”

The mayor is also committed to trying new strategies in other policy areas, such as police-community relations and education. “I do think we need to take some risks and propose some things that may make people uncomfortable but ultimately may help us to get the kind of results that will . . . make a difference.”

But Breed also emphasized accountability. Explaining why she wants to hire a mental health director, she said, “We’re a little bit all over the place right now and I want us to address those issues, organize things a lot better for the purposes of helping people.” In this and other areas, she said, “I want to see us make the right investments.”

2020 Census: Hurdles Remain as the Count Nears

This post is part of a series examining challenges involved in the 2020 Census and what’s at stake for California. Click here to see our full coverage.

Described as the largest peacetime operation undertaken by the federal government, the census is used for everything from allocating congressional seats to redrawing voting districts to distributing billions of dollars in federal funding. Many Californians are at risk of being undercounted, and an inaccurate count could have far-reaching implications.

Following decades of escalating costs, the Census Bureau has made significant changes to modernize the census, in hopes of keeping costs similar to what they were in 2010 ($92 per household). For the first time, most households will be invited to respond online, and newly developed tools will help manage field operations. These changes should reduce the staffing levels and infrastructure necessary to conduct the census.

But new approaches also create new risks. The US Government Accountability Office has designated the 2020 Census at high risk of failure, citing capacity and planning issues and the fact that the testing of new systems has been scaled back. Several field tests were cancelled in 2017, and the full end-to-end test, which is designed to approximate actual census operations, took place in only one location rather than three, as originally planned. Recently, the NAACP released documents suggesting that chronic underfunding and understaffing at the Census Bureau have negatively affected census preparations.

As of December 2018, the Census Bureau had identified almost 1,100 security weaknesses in its IT systems that still needed to be addressed. Possible threats include disruptions to the website platform, malware from respondents’ personal devices, and impersonation of the Census Bureau. The bureau maintains that it is fully vetting new processes—including working with industry and the Department of Homeland Security to identify and protect against IT threats.

Another big uncertainty concerns the federal administration’s plans to add a citizenship question. Several lawsuits have challenged this decision, and the Supreme Court is scheduled to make a ruling by the end of June on whether the question can be included. Regardless of the ruling, census responses are confidential and, under federal law, the Census Bureau cannot share any personally identifiable information, even with other government agencies. However, combined with federal government rhetoric and actions around deportation, a citizenship question may lower response rates among California’s 10 million immigrants, especially households with undocumented members.

Last year’s end-to-end test did not include a citizenship question. But this July, the Census Bureau will conduct a nationally representative test that should shed light on the question’s potential impact on response rates. Results will help shape the bureau’s outreach strategy and determine if more census workers are needed to follow up with households that don’t respond.

In the meantime, what can California do to ensure an accurate count next year? The state has already invested more in census outreach than any other: $100 million for 2018–19, with an additional $54 million proposed for 2019–20. State and local governments and organizations all have a role to play. Building awareness about the role of the census in determining funding for local public services will go a long way toward motivating Californians to respond, as will assuring residents that their data will be safe and secure.

To discuss what’s needed as California prepares for the 2020 Census, PPIC will be hosting an event on Monday, March 25 in Sacramento with Secretary of State Alex Padilla and other distinguished leaders and experts. Those who cannot attend in person are welcome to join the live webcast, or visit our website later to watch a video of the event.

Californians’ Views of Immigration Policy—Now and Then

From building a border wall to declaring a crisis at the border, immigration policy proposals from the Trump Administration continue to provoke controversy and stir national debate. How do Californians—who live with the nation’s highest share of immigrants—view such proposals? And more broadly, how have their views of immigration policy changed over time?

When it comes to a border wall, Californians’ views are decidedly different than those of adults nationwide. Fewer than three in ten Californians (28%) supported building a wall along the entire border with Mexico in our January survey, but twice as many American adults (56%) were in favor of this proposal in a January CNN survey.

However, the wall is a highly partisan issue in California. Support among California Republicans is quite notable, with 76% in favor. Among other partisans—and across regions and demographic groups—support fails to eclipse 40%.

There’s more agreement between Californians and other Americans regarding the situation at the border. Relatively few Californians in our January survey or adults nationwide in a January ABC/Washington Post survey call the situation at the US-Mexico border a “crisis” (27% California, 24% nationwide).

Again, there are stark partisan differences over this topic in California. Republicans (58%) are far more likely than Democrats (14%) and independents (28%) to call the border situation a crisis. Across regions and demographic groups, one in three—or fewer—say this.

Californians’ views of immigration policy have changed a great deal since the passage of Proposition 187 nearly 25 years ago. Supported by 58% of the vote, Prop 187 sought to make undocumented immigrants ineligible for public benefits. Blocked by a federal judge, the measure was never enforced.

Today, 58% of Californians support California’s state and local governments in making their own policies and taking their own actions—separate from the federal government—to protect the legal rights of undocumented immigrants in California.

Not only have Californians’ views of immigration policy changed over time, so have their perceptions of immigrants. While state residents have generally held positive views of immigrants, in recent years these perceptions have become much more positive.

Since the PPIC Statewide Survey last talked to Californians, President Trump has declared a national emergency as he seeks funds to build the wall, while California—along with other states—has sued the federal government over this claim. As California and the Trump Administration continue to spar over immigration policy, stay tuned while we track Californians’ perceptions and policy preferences related to this issue.

State-level Strategies to Reduce Student Debt

As college costs have increased, the total amount of loan debt in California has risen. At four-year colleges and universities in California in 2016, 40% of first-time, full-time students took out loans to help pay for their education, according to federal data.

The average debt for California students who attend four-year public and private nonprofit schools is nearly $22,800. Repaying college debt can be a big challenge, in part because the federal landscape for repaying loans is extremely complicated. To reduce student debt, state policymakers are actively thinking about new ways to help students repay their college costs.

In 2018, nearly half (47%) of borrowers enrolled in the federal “standard repayment” plan. Under this plan, a graduate makes fixed monthly payments over the course of ten years, paying down the entire loan with interest. Regardless of income level, a graduate with a loan of $22,800—the average amount—would, at 5% interest, face payments of about $240/month. For those in less well-paying occupations or who face very high monthly payments, this kind of plan can be financially challenging.

Another option is income-based repayment, which is often more financially manageable—but a much smaller share (29%) of borrowers enrolled in an income-based program in 2018. Monthly payments might start at 10% of discretionary income, but payments increase if the graduate starts earning more. Under these plans, borrowers generally pay smaller monthly amounts over a longer period of time.

Possible reasons for lower participation in income-based repayment programs include complex eligibility requirements and missing the deadline for declaring income. Streamlining the federal loan process, including clarifying eligibility criteria, could help make the process less confusing and allow students to make the best financial choices.

At the state level, policymakers are exploring other options to ease the burden of college debt. For example, AB 140 (Cervantes) would authorize the California Student Aid Commission, which administers the state’s financial aid programs, to pay an eligible student’s monthly loan payments for two years. And AB 154 (Voepel) would pilot an “income share” program at one University of California campus and one California State University campus. This program would enable campuses to pay for some of an eligible student’s educational expenses. After graduating, students then repay a portion of their income to the campus.

It’s a positive sign that California policymakers are pursuing state-level strategies to address growing college debt. Establishing an easy-to-use application process and clear-cut eligibility criteria will be key to ensuring that students are able to benefit from these programs. Perhaps most important, more comprehensive financial aid counseling and outreach are necessary to help students make the best choice when repaying their loans.

Widening the Conversation about Safe Drinking Water in the San Joaquin Valley

The theme of this Friday’s World Water Day is the lack of safe drinking water that affects many millions of people worldwide. Here in California, the San Joaquin Valley is a hot spot for unsafe drinking water. The region has more than half of all public water systems that are out of water-quality compliance in California, but just 10% of the state’s population. In addition, chronic decline in groundwater levels has caused drinking water wells go dry in a number of the region’s communities. We talked to Veronica Garibay—co-founder and co-director of the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability—about ways to ensure community involvement in water management decision-making processes.

PPIC: What is key to understanding the valley’s safe drinking water crisis?

VERONICA GARIBAY: Water management is a particularly opaque and complex process, and past decision-making processes related to land use and water management failed to meaningfully include disadvantaged community voices and address their needs.

Climate change brings major risks to our water resources. The communities that are already the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change—including water shortages during droughts, worsening water quality, flooding, and other problems—will see their vulnerability exacerbated. We have to change the way we manage water resources to adapt to these changes.

We have to bring our most vulnerable communities into these conversations, prioritize their needs, and make sure they, too, have decision-making authority over policy, programs, and projects.

Disadvantaged communities have been at the forefront of the progress we’ve already made on providing safe drinking water. They led the charge that gave the State Water Board the authority to consolidate small systems into larger ones, brought emergency funds to communities whose wells went dry during the drought, and led to the board’s establishment of the Office of Sustainable Drinking Water Solutions. Now their leadership is building momentum around the proposed safe and affordable drinking water fund, which would provide much-needed resources to pay for ongoing operations and maintenance costs and capital projects to ensure safe drinking water.

PPIC: The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local agencies to protect water quality while balancing groundwater supplies and demands. Why is it important for disadvantaged communities to participate in this process?

VG: Water is a critical resource to all of us, and the most vulnerable people should have a say in its management. Communities have a lot to contribute and need to be part of the solution. As a region we need to democratize the process and make sure that all interests are considered.

We’re working to ensure that planning for groundwater sustainability is more inclusive by encouraging groundwater sustainability agencies to establish authentic and meaningful space for direct community input and engaging communities most vulnerable to water quantity and quality issues in the region. We want to see sustainability plans that incentivize programs, policies, and projects that support safe drinking water and benefit households in disadvantaged communities.

PPIC: Are there good models for participation in the process?

VG: The North Fork Kings groundwater sustainability agency (GSA) has established a rural community advisory committee. It helps bring disadvantaged rural communities into the process to develop a sustainability plan. That’s a good step in making sure communities are providing direct input.

And the Madera GSA is encouraging all stakeholders to learn from each other and talk to each other. They’re making sure a variety of stakeholders get in the same room to learn how decision making on water affects different groups, and how we can shape solutions together.

We’d like to see more GSAs give some authority to disadvantaged communities and meaningfully build space into their processes for communities to participate.

Equal access to information is also key—what’s being presented at meetings should be accessible and in different languages if needed. And we need to ensure there is space to give feedback and that this feedback is reflected in the final sustainability plans.

These efforts will take work. Organizations like ours, and Self Help Enterprises and the Community Water Center, have all offered to collaborate with GSAs and help them engage community participation. The state has provided some funds for community engagement as part of its support of the SGMA planning process. But GSAs will also need to budget for equity—plan for and allocate resources to make sure they’re intentionally engaging communities.

Watch a video of Veronica Garibay and other panelists discussing water supply and water quality management in the San Joaquin Valley

A Coordinating Council for Higher Education

The California Legislature and Governor Newsom are interested in creating a new coordinating entity for the state’s public higher education system. The state has been without such an entity since 2011, when Governor Brown vetoed funding for the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). A new coordinating entity can help the governor and legislature improve higher education by providing expertise and analysis. But it will require policymakers to provide a solid foundation for its work.

California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education gives the three state public higher education segments—the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges—significant autonomy. CPEC was created to help policymakers conduct long-term planning, monitor student outcomes, and oversee intersegmental policies that make it easier for students to navigate through the college and university systems. A new PPIC report looks at the strengths and weaknesses of CPEC to provide suggestions about how to make a new coordinating entity as effective as possible.

CPEC’s experience underlines the need for clear state goals and objectives. A higher education coordinating body can advocate effectively for student success and assess how well the segments are meeting the needs of the state economy. But higher education in California has changed significantly over the past several decades, and the Master Plan is either silent or outdated in important areas.

CPEC’s history also shows that the details of the coordinating entity’s design are important in giving it a strong, unified voice in the budget and policy process. A coordinating entity should be empowered to monitor whether the state’s higher education goals are being met and suggest ways to make the system more effective. When the segments fall short or when there are conflicts about how best to accomplish state goals, the coordinating entity should be able to work with the colleges, universities, and state policymakers to find workable solutions.

In this time of heightened demand for higher education, the governor and legislature could benefit from a coordinating body that acts as an honest broker in helping the state provide access to all interested students while maintaining the quality of public higher education that California is known for.