June 2019 – Public Policy Institute of California

Interview: Citizenship and the 2020 Census

This post is part of a series examining challenges involved in the 2020 Census and what’s at stake for California.

After a heated legal battle, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot for now include a question on the 2020 Census asking if residents are US citizens. We spoke with PPIC senior fellow Eric McGhee about what this decision means for California.

PPIC: Why is the citizenship question controversial?

Eric McGhee: First, the question could significantly discourage responses among immigrants, who might fear the data would be used to target them. It didn’t go through the normal testing process for new questions, and many Census Bureau employees recommended against adding it because of concerns about data quality.

Second, the Trump administration says the question is necessary to properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. But advocates for immigrant communities dispute this justification and argue that current citizenship data is sufficient to protect against voting discrimination.

Third, it could have a huge impact on political representation and how congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. Districts are currently drawn based on total population. But this question could make it possible for states to use citizens or voting-eligible residents instead, which would tilt representation in favor of those groups.

PPIC: What does all this mean for California?

EM: Response rates will likely be better if the question is not added. But there’s also concern that the damage has already been done—immigrants still might not be inclined to respond. Immigrants make up about a quarter of California’s population, so we’re particularly vulnerable.

A large undercount could result in less federal funding for California. We’re also the only state at risk of losing a congressional seat from an undercount—other states with high immigrant populations like Arizona and Texas might not gain as many seats, but they probably won’t lose a seat they already have, even if there’s a bad count.

Households with undocumented members are the most likely to be undercounted. PPIC research looked at the possibility of a 10% undercount of these households, a reasonable assumption based on existing research. It would mean missing about half a million Californians.

The reality is that census data is thoroughly protected, even from law enforcement agencies like the FBI and ICE. But our May PPIC survey—conducted before the Supreme Court decision—found 63% of Californians were concerned the Census Bureau will not keep responses confidential. Latinos (74%), immigrants (71%), and African Americans (70%) were especially likely to be concerned.

There are other uncertainties too. The 2020 Census will use a new internet-based approach, which hasn’t been comprehensively tested. And people in general are becoming more reluctant to respond to the census. This means the bureau has to do more follow-up, which is expensive and increases the likelihood of problems arising.

PPIC: What can California do to ensure a complete and accurate count?

EM: California is way ahead of other states in terms of funds it has dedicated to census outreach. The state has already appropriated about $100 million to support a better count, and Governor Newsom has proposed another $50 million or so. Philanthropic organizations have chipped in about $30 million. There’s been a great deal of planning at the state and local levels to get the best count possible.

Addressing concerns about confidentiality could go a long way toward encouraging people to respond. Research also suggests that raising awareness about the census’s role in funding public services like health care, roads, highways, and fire and police departments is another promising approach.

Video: Recidivism of Felony Offenders in California

Over the past decade, California has implemented several corrections reforms—including public safety realignment in 2011 and Proposition 47 in 2014. The aim was to reduce incarceration levels and improve offender outcomes without reducing public safety. The rate of rearrest and reconviction, or recidivism—which has long been quite high in California—is an important indicator of the impact of the reforms. At a briefing in Sacramento last Thursday, PPIC researcher Mia Bird outlined the findings of a new report on recidivism among all types of felony offenders—including those sentenced to prison, jail only, jail followed by probation, or probation only.

Recidivism is often used to capture changes in reoffending in response to a policy change. However, it is important to note that these rates may also reflect changes in the practices of criminal justice agencies. The PPIC analysis, which draws on data collected from 12 representative counties, finds that overall recidivism rates for felony offenders declined between 2011 and 2015. Bird outlined several other key findings:

Rearrest and reconviction rates fell sharply for felony drug offenses; rearrest rates went up slightly among individuals convicted of offenses against a person (including violent offenses), but the reconviction rate did not change.
Recidivism rates declined for all four sentencing groups. Initially, there were increases in recidivism among individuals who were sentenced to probation, with or without jail time, but these rates decreased in later years and under Proposition 47.
Individuals released from prison had the highest reconviction rates; this finding is consistent with previous research that has found little evidence of a link between more-severe sanctions and lower recidivism.
Rearrest rates for felony offenses increased in the last several months covered by the analysis.

Bird noted that there are several possible interpretations of these findings. There are grounds for optimism: “We do see that we’ve achieved a really large reduction in incarceration and we haven’t seen big increases in recidivism. In many ways that suggests that we’ve managed this transition quite well.”

However, she underlined the need to recognize that recidivism rates are linked to multiple factors: “They may partially represent individual behavior and they may partially represent criminal justice practice.”

Asked what the PPIC analysis indicates about future steps the state should take, Bird said, “Policy that supports data collection, data integration, and monitoring and evaluation . . . is essential. We know we can do better if we know more.”

The LA River and the Trade-Offs of Water Recycling

This is part of a series on issues facing California’s rivers.

After a very wet winter, California has been declared drought free. But planning for future water shortages has continued. In Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced a goal of 100% wastewater recycling by 2035 to help make city supplies drought proof.

While recycling wastewater helps cities adapt to a changing climate and prepare for droughts, it can have unintended consequences for local watersheds. In some cases, the growing use of recycled water could minimize or even eliminate flows from wastewater treatment plants into local rivers and streams and reduce ecological and recreational benefits. The Los Angeles River exemplifies this kind of trade-off: expanded water recycling will reduce the amount of treated wastewater flowing into this increasingly revitalized urban waterway.

The lower stretch of the river, which was converted into a concrete flood channel in the mid-1900s, is changing. Concrete has been removed from large stretches of the river and public parks and bike paths have been built along its banks, encouraging recreational use and increasing public interest in the river’s restoration. The river was declared a navigable water in 2010 and opened to kayaking the following year. It provides a vital refuge to a variety of riparian species that lost most of their habitat to channelization and urban development.

Last year, researchers from the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) launched a study to document the effects of reductions of treated wastewater on vulnerable species and habitats along the highly urbanized, 45-mile stretch of the lower river, as well as on recreational uses of the river. One of the project’s goals is to determine how these impacts could be offset by investments in river restoration and upstream mitigation projects.

The SCCWRP researchers plan to develop recommended seasonal flow targets for each section of the LA River. They will consider the balance between protecting the river’s ecological and recreational uses and local agencies’ desire to capture, divert, and recycle more water in the watershed. The study will also help inform a number of planning efforts, including One Water LA and the LA River Revitalization Master Plan.

Eric Stein, principal scientist with SCCWRP, emphasized that the project’s success is dependent on its collaborative nature. “We are bringing together agencies, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups to help explore alternative future scenarios and find innovative ways to balance potentially competing demands for water in the LA River,” he said.

The LA River watershed is only one example where a conflict between recycled water investments and downstream users is emerging. As the demand for recycled water grows and local agencies consider new projects, other watersheds could benefit from similar efforts to better understand the impacts of water recycling on the local ecology and downstream users.

Interview: Filling the Gaps in California’s Education Data

California is one of only a few states without a database showing how students advance from K–12 schools to college and into the workforce. As part of his “cradle to career” initiative, Governor Newsom has proposed $10 million to develop such a system.

We talked to Dr. Jessica Cunningham, interim executive director of the Kentucky Center for Statistics (KYSTATS), about Kentucky’s preschool-to-workforce data system and what California can learn from their experiences.

PPIC: What are the benefits of an integrated student database?

Jessica Cunningham: One major benefit is improving current programs and education-to-career pathways. We work with K–12 career technical education (CTE) programs to provide them with better labor market data to guide their offerings. We’ve also evaluated the impact of expanding work-ready scholarships for students earning high-demand associate degrees at community colleges.

Our research helps policymakers, practitioners, agencies, and the public make more informed decisions. We recently showed that students who completed K–12 CTE programs earned more than their peers. This information contributed to the state’s decision to include CTE pathways as an alternative to the standard high school equivalency test.

PPIC: What hurdles did you encounter establishing the system?

JC: Funding is an ongoing challenge. We’re 85% funded by federal grants, so we face some financial uncertainty year to year. We’re currently looking at the potential for state appropriations as a more sustainable funding source.

More broadly, managing the data system is like working on a puzzle. Sometimes there are missing pieces, since you’re only able to report on the data you have. For example, we don’t have data on private K–12 schools or on children’s experiences prior to preschool or Head Start, so we need to be mindful of those gaps.

Also, some benefits of a data system take time and it’s important to set expectations accordingly. When we published our very first report on high school graduates, readers were eager for information on college completion rates and earnings. But we needed many more years of data before we could examine those long-term outcomes.

PPIC: What recommendations do you have for California?

JC: In Kentucky, we’re legislatively authorized to receive education and workforce data. A governance structure that includes different stakeholder groups (K–12, higher education, workforce development, financial aid) is also critical.

In the early stages, it’s necessary to figure out the key questions for the state—and to determine who should be engaged in that process. Those questions will drive decisions about the data you collect. You won’t be able to do everything at once, so developing a strong research agenda is essential.

Setting up a centralized system makes things easier. This way, no one has to recreate all the necessary data connections for every report or request. Our reporting data warehouse has zero personally identifiable information. We do everything in house—we don’t have to send data back and forth to a vendor and we know that we’re maintaining confidentiality and following the rigorous rules outlined in our data use and access policy.

We also emphasize that we’re nonpartisan. We provide data and results, but policymakers and other leaders are the ones driving the conversation about how to use this information to improve programs and policies.

Video: Mobilizing the Inland Empire for the Census—and for the Future

As California’s diverse regions prepare for the 2020 Census, community-based organizations and local leaders are playing key roles. An event last week in Riverside offered insights on the Inland Empire’s outreach strategies for the Census and beyond. Cosponsored by PPIC and the Center for Social Innovation at the University of California, Riverside, the event featured a panel of state and local experts.

The discussion was moderated by Michelle Decker, president and CEO of the Community Foundation. She began by asking Eric McGhee, PPIC senior fellow, to explain the importance of an accurate census count in California. The census helps determine the distribution of federal funding to the states; gathers information about the population that is valuable to policymakers and businesses alike; and is the basis for reapportionment and redistricting. As McGhee pointed out, an undercount of California’s population could be costly in all of these areas.

McGhee noted that California has large shares of “the kinds of groups that tend to be undercounted—Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, renters, very young children, noncitizens.” Finally, he outlined concerns about inadequate funding, which has prevented a thorough testing of the process, and the climate of fear in immigrant communities, which could result in lower response rates even if the Supreme Court rules against the inclusion of a question on citizenship later this month.

But there is some good news: “It wouldn’t take that much for California to overcome some of these challenges,” McGhee said. California is arguably more mobilized than any other state, and the Inland Empire is one of the state’s most mobilized regions.

Deborah Phares, Census 2020 project manager at the Community Foundation, sees the census as a great opportunity for policymakers and organizations across Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. The region’s collaborative efforts were galvanized by a state request for information about innovative census outreach strategies. “We decided that we were going to pursue and support and advocate for allocation of resources based on need,” said Phares, adding that the regional plan is designed to avoid overlapping efforts and to integrate data so that organizations could work together “in a very deep way.”

Karthick Ramakrishnan, founding director of the Center for Social Innovation, underscored the significance of a two-county approach to census outreach that draws from a wide range of communities-—geographic sub-regions and demographic groups. “I think the kind of work that’s happening in the Inland Empire is the envy of the rest of the country. . . .We’re building some pretty amazing tools that will stand the test of time.”

Kathleen Kelly Janus, the newly appointed senior advisor on social innovation in the Governor’s Office, agreed: “I think there’s a huge opportunity to invest in capacity building through all these census dollars that are coming in.” She added that the cross-sector approach involving foundations, community-based organizations, policymakers, and other groups “is a model that we can use not just for the census but for all of these other issues that Governor Newsom wants to address.”

Learning the Language of Groundwater

groundwater (ground·wa·ter \-wȯ-tər, -ˌwä-\ Water beneath the land surface that fills pore spaces in underlying soil or rock.

Groundwater is a critical part of California’s water supply—on average, underground aquifers provide nearly 40% of the water used by the state’s farms and cities, and more in dry years. But after decades of unsustainable pumping in many basins, the state is undergoing major changes in how it manages this resource. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires water users to develop plans to bring their basins into balance in coming years and encourages wide public participation in the planning process. Knowing some of the vocabulary is key to engaging in the conversation. This glossary will get you started.

Adjudication: A lack of clarity over how much groundwater individuals can pump has caused conflict in some places. In more than two dozen basins, mostly in Southern California, the courts have been asked to settle—adjudicate—disputes over groundwater pumping rights. Adjudicated basins must report how much water is being pumped, but most other basins are not yet required to do so.

Conjunctive use: The coordinated management of surface water and groundwater to make the best use of surface water during wet periods and groundwater during dry periods. Expanding this practice can require changing how surface reservoirs are operated, to allow the release of more water during the fall to replenish aquifers and increase reservoirs’ capacity to hold winter runoff.

Conveyance: The infrastructure needed to move surface water to where it can be used, including to areas suitable for recharging aquifers. In some parts of the state, this infrastructure is in poor condition or is missing links, creating barriers to getting more water into underground storage.

Glide path: A gradual approach to implementing SGMA, to give water users time to adjust and prevent major disruptions in the regional economy. Most groundwater sustainability agencies in the San Joaquin Valley—where overdraft is a major issue—are likely to adopt this approach. The result is that groundwater levels will continue to decline, but at a decreasing rate, until they reach long-term balance.

Groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs): Local agencies formed to develop groundwater sustainability plans to manage their resources for the long run. More than 250 GSAs in 140 “priority basins” (which account for most of California’s groundwater use) have been formed.

Overdraft: When groundwater extraction exceeds what is being replenished (also called “groundwater mining”). Its repercussions can include drying wells, sinking lands, reduced streamflow, degraded water quality, and higher energy use from pumping water from deeper depths.

Recharge: Taking action to replenish underground aquifers with surface water (also known as “managed recharge” to distinguish it from natural recharge). This water can come from a variety of sources, including flood- and stormwater, treated wastewater, and spare surface water. Recharge usually involves spreading water on the land. Some water districts have dedicated recharge basins, but individual farms can also help by recharging on their lands. “In lieu” recharge is when farmers enable the aquifer to replenish naturally by pumping less and using surface water instead. One challenge is coming up with ways to compensate farmers who recharge shared basins under their land.

Safe or sustainable yield: The amount of water that can be withdrawn from a groundwater basin without causing problems—such as a significant drop in water levels, harm to groundwater-dependent ecosystems, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, to name a few.

Saltwater intrusion: Many coastal aquifers—for example, those on the Central Coast—are overdrafted, which reduces groundwater flow toward the sea and allows saltwater to move in.

Subsidence: Land surfaces can sink in overdrafted basins, which damages infrastructure such as bridges, reservoirs, and water canals. Parts of the San Joaquin Valley have been sinking by more than half a foot annually. Subsidence has reduced capacity in the Friant-Kern Canal, the Delta Mendota Canal, and the California Aqueduct.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Requires water users in most groundwater basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans to bring groundwater use and recharge into balance by the early 2040s. The challenges are particularly big in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Coast.

White areas: Areas that rely entirely on groundwater for drinking water and irrigation supplies. Water users in these areas—which are shown in white on irrigation district maps—are particularly susceptible to groundwater quality problems and falling water tables, and are vulnerable to pumping restrictions with the implementation of SGMA.

Skills-based Immigration and California’s Workforce

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The White House recently issued a summary of an immigration plan that would shift the nation’s largely family-based immigration system toward a skills-based approach that would probably prioritize immigrants with higher levels of formal education. Given that the education levels of new immigrants are already on the rise, what impact might a skills-based system have on in California, the state with the largest immigrant population?

The proposed new system would increase the percentage of skills-based legal immigrants from 12% to 57%, leaving the total number of immigrants at 1.1 million per year.

In recent years, about two-thirds of immigrants with lawful permanent residence status (or “Green Cards”) have been admitted to the US through family-based preferences. The proposed new system would reduce this by half, to 33%. The White House statement emphasizes that priority would still be given to immediate family members of both US citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Past PPIC research suggests that family-preference immigrants have historically been high- and low-skilled. And California’s economy relies on immigrants at both ends of the educational spectrum. Nearly a third of the state’s working-age immigrants lack a high school diploma, and they make up a large portion of the workforce in industries requiring less formal education. However, the foreign-born now constitute 31% of California workers who have at least a BA, and they are overrepresented in high-skill industries like technology and health care.

Recent PPIC research finds that new immigrants in California are increasingly well-educated. In 2017, a slight majority (52%) of the state’s working-age immigrants with fewer than five years in the US had a bachelor’s or graduate degree, compared to only 22% in 1990. Only 17% had not graduated from high school, down from 47% in 1990. Indeed, recently arrived immigrants are more likely than US-born Californians to have college or graduate degrees.

It is impossible to know exactly how a skills-based immigration system would affect California. But given the trend toward higher education levels among new immigrants and state economy’s reliance on both high- and low-skilled workers, a shift toward such a system might not be necessary to meet California’s workforce needs.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Video: Californians and Their Government

Less than a year before California’s presidential primary, likely voters who are Democrats or who lean Democratic are divided on strategy: is it more important for the party to nominate the candidate who seems mostly likely to defeat President Trump or the candidate whose positions align most closely their views? But almost all Californians see voting in the 2020 elections as very important. At a lunchtime briefing in Sacramento last Thursday, PPIC researcher Dean Bonner outlined these and other key findings from the latest statewide survey.

Two in three California likely voters say they will definitely or probably choose a candidate other than Trump. There is a huge partisan divide on this question: 93% of Democrats and 66% of independents would definitely or probably vote for another candidate if the election were held today, while 82% of Republicans would definitely or probably vote for Trump.

Most Californians say that the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not clear the president of wrongdoing, and Californians are more likely that the nation as a whole to say impeachment proceedings should begin. But here, too, there is a partisan divide: 66% of Democrats say Congress should begin the process, compared to only 39% of independents and 9% of Republicans.

Other survey highlights:

A majority of Californians say their housing costs cause a financial strain; six in ten favor the governor’s plan to allocate $1 billion to address homelessness, and similar shares favor proposed new rules intended to create more affordable housing.
Three-quarters of Californians see participation in the 2020 Census as very important—but most have concerns about confidentiality.
An overwhelming majority are concerned about rising electricity bills in the wake of the PG&E bankruptcy.
Californians are concerned that the recent outbreak of measles could spread; most believe that vaccines are very safe and an overwhelming majority say vaccination against measles and other diseases should be required.

CSU’s Prudent Saving Strategy

The California State University system is taking significant steps to improve its financial position and increase transparency with a new public, online Financial Transparency Portal. It shows that CSU is building both capital and operating reserves that could help soften the blow in the event of an economic downturn.

The new Transparency Portal shows that CSU’s reserves have grown in recent years, for both capital spending—which includes equipment acquisition, facilities maintenance and repairs, and capital improvement and construction—and operations. To put this growth into context, in CSU’s 2017–18 budget a little more than one third of total expenditures went toward salaries and wages (about $3.6 billion). The system’s operating reserve for that year was about $800 million, meaning that if that system spent its entire reserve it would still only be able to cover a very modest cut in state appropriations.

The portal also shows that some of the greatest growth has occurred in funds for capital improvement and construction. These funds are typically allocated to upgrade existing facilities and build new ones. This is very good news in terms of long-term planning, and provides a good example for the state’s other higher education institutions.

There also has been modest progress in accumulating savings to simply maintain facilities, an area that saw deep cuts during the Great Recession.

The growth in capital reserves is promising and helps to safeguard CSU’s ability to meet the needs of its future students. Similarly, building operating reserves is key to preserving access and maintaining strong student outcomes during the next recession.

Making financial information transparent, including campus-level information, is also a positive step. It clarifies the allocation of resources and reveals the details of CSU’s reserve strategy—making important information available to public officials and the attentive public.

California 2020: Census and Elections Are Important to Californians

The 2020 Census is fast approaching. With political representation and billions in federal funds on the line, the importance of an accurate count cannot be overstated. Californians recognize this, according to our latest survey—but many have concerns about the confidentiality of the information they provide. Even more Californians say that the 2020 elections are important. Both are critical to the future of the state.

California has invested substantially in raising awareness and preparing local communities for what will be a monumental census effort. Governor Gavin Newsom has proposed adding another $54 million toward state census activities, on top of a previous allocation that was just north of $100 million. These funds—along with a sustained effort at building partnerships around the state—are meant to counter California’s particular vulnerabilities when it comes to ensuring an accurate census: large shares of immigrants and other hard-to-count populations.

With so much at stake, participation in the census is critical. Are Californians aware of the importance of being counted? Currently, three-quarters of all adults (75%) say it is very important to participate in the 2020 Census. Overwhelming majorities agree across regions, political parties, and all demographic groups—from age, income, and education level to racial/ethnic and citizenship status groups. Naturalized citizens are the most likely to say that participation in the census is very important (80%).

Later this month, the US Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of adding a question about citizenship status to the 2020 Census, as the Trump administration has proposed. This question has not been asked on the decennial census since 1950, and opponents argue that it would depress the count among immigrants who might be fearful about revealing their status.

A solid majority of Californians (63%) are concerned that the Census Bureau will not keep 2020 Census answers confidential. This concern is highest among Latinos (74%) and African Americans (70%), followed by Asian Americans (64%) and whites (52%). US-born Californians (58%) are less likely than foreign-born residents (71%) to say that confidentiality is a concern.

The upcoming census will coincide with another pivotal event—the 2020 presidential election. Election outcomes will have additional lasting effects this cycle, as state legislators (or redistricting commissions) will use the new 2020 Census data to redraw district lines that will last a decade. Today, nearly all Californians recognize the importance of voting next year.

While three in four say it is very important to participate in the census, even more—nine in ten—say that it is very important to vote in the 2020 elections. More than nine in ten across political parties hold this view, as do more than eight in ten across regions and demographic groups.

With a presidential primary in California next March and the census in April, Californians are heading toward a consequential season—for the state and the nation. Efforts to boost participation in both of these essential civic events will be critical to ensuring that all Californians are heard—and counted.