Author: admin

Crime Rates Down, But Not Everywhere

Most of California’s counties saw lower crime rates in 2013, according to the latest data. Violent crime dropped in 41 out of the 58 counties, and property crime dropped in 37 counties. In some counties the decreases are substantial. For example, property and violent crime rates in Merced County dropped by 20.4% and 15.8%, respectively, while Napa experienced declines of 10.8% and 14.7%.

While news of improved public safety is unquestionably good, crime experts will point out that understanding year-to-year changes is difficult. That’s particularly true for small counties, where just a few criminal incidents can dramatically affect crime rates. Larger counties are less sensitive to this, by virtue of their size alone, so looking at changes in crime rates in the state’s largest counties provides a meaningful focus.

Here, too, the news is mostly good—most of the state’s large counties saw drops in crime rates in 2013. This appears to be part of a longer trend (2012 was an exception). Violent crime dropped in 14 out of the state’s 15 largest counties, which include more than four-fifths of California’s total population. The property crime rate decreased in 11 out of the 15 largest counties. Again, some of the drops are substantial. For example, Orange and Sacramento Counties saw decreases of 10% and 9.4% in property crime, and their violent crime rates dropped by 11.9% and 7%.

However, not all large counties saw improvements in 2013. One county’s recent trend differs noticeably: San Francisco. Even as property and violent crime rates reached 10-year lows in Los Angeles, Orange, and Sacramento Counties, San Francisco’s reached 10-year highs. The recent increase is surprising. The county appeared to be in good shape to handle the new responsibilities—most centrally, managing lower-level felons—given to all counties under California’s public safety realignment. San Francisco is often regarded as innovative in its strategies to prevent re-offending. It is also a county that does not face jail capacity constraints. More broadly, San Francisco has seen a shift toward a wealthier population and has a strong and growing economy—indicators that usually point to less crime.

Right now, it is difficult to say what is behind San Francisco’s troubling crime trend, but it is possible that some features unique to the county are contributing factors. One of these features is the relatively high proportion of non-residents in San Francisco at any point in time. For example, if there is an increase in the number of tourists and commuting workers, then the number of potential crime victims (which may attract more offenders) also increases. But crime rates are based only on the number of county residents—they do not take into account changes in non-residential population. So an increase in the number of reported crimes could partially be driven by an increase in the number of visitors, including tourists and commuting workers. Estimates based on Census data show that commuting workers add about 162,000 to the daytime population of San Francisco. That’s more commuters than any other county in California—including Los Angeles County, which is roughly 12 times larger.

It’s still not clear if changes in the non-resident population are driving up San Francisco’s crime rates—the recent increase in residential burglary suggests other crime-related factors could be involved. Changes in the number of cops, policing strategies, sentencing and incarceration decisions, jail capacity, and approaches to reduce re-offending are all factors that may affect county crime rates and trends.

This brief mini-analysis of San Francisco’s crime trends is admittedly speculative, and it points toward the difficulty of interpreting these trends—as well as the need for more research, which would allow us to better understand the underlying factors of crime and crime trends in California. PPIC is committed to continuing such efforts.

(TOP CHART) Source: Author calculations based on the California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Crimes and Clearances Files, 2004–2013. Note: Violent crime includes homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

(BOTTOM CHART) Source: Author calculations based on the California Department of Justice’s Criminal Justice Statistics Center, California Crimes and Clearances Files, 2004–2013. Note: Property crime includes burglary, motor vehicle theft, and larceny theft (including non-felonious larceny theft).

The Road Ahead for Superintendent Torlakson

In what was thought to be one of the most closely contested statewide races, incumbent Tom Torlakson defeated challenger Marshall Tuck to retain the job of state schools chief. In the post mortems, much will be made of the money that was spent on perhaps the most expensive race in this cycle. The conversation, undoubtedly, will focus in part on the significance that national groups attached to this race, which pitted the powerful teachers’ union against the “reformers.” Though there is some value to attempting to unpack the past, it is more important to look forward to the impact Torlakson could have on education in California in his second term.

Leading up to election day, commentators routinely described the state superintendent position as “powerless” or even “obscure.” And it is true that when it comes to making policy the state education chief plays a limited role. A great deal of policy has already been made, and what lies ahead is the difficult job of implementation. The superintendent could play a major part in deciding how these policies roll out. The California Department of Education (CDE) that Torlakson heads has more than 1,500 employees and a budget of $250 million dollars. How he chooses to allocate those resources could make a real contribution to supporting schools and districts as they grapple with major changes.

California has made more significant changes to K–12 education policy in the past four years than it made in the previous two decades:

  • In 2010, the state adopted the Common Core State Standards, a decision that affects nearly every element of what happens in the classroom.

  • In 2013, California scrapped its old system of distributing funds to schools and opted for a formula that directs additional dollars to districts with higher numbers of needy students. One consequence of this change was to put much more power in the hands of local decisionmakers.

  • Accompanying the new funding strategy is a new approach to holding districts accountable for the performance of their schools.

  • And if that isn’t enough, California has begun a new statewide testing regime that has, as yet, only been piloted. The first real round of tests will begin this spring, with results due out in the summer.

As my colleague Paul Warren and I recently observed, CDE has played a minimal role in guiding implementation of the new standards but there are several things it could do to ease the transition. There are also challenges ahead for the state when it comes to the new accountability requirements. Because the new rules were written broadly, they have probably raised more questions than they answered about what accountability looks like going forward. Finally, somebody needs to help students and parents prepare for the new test results. On average, scores are likely to be lower. That doesn’t mean that California’s children somehow became less smart over the past two years; it means that the tests are harder. This is an important distinction that will need to be communicated.

Policy implementation isn’t sexy. It is hard, roll up-your-sleeves work. If the superintendent embraces his role, he could have an impact on California education that goes far beyond symbolism.

The Election Was Hard on California Democrats, Too

It’s pretty obvious that Democrats had a bad night nationally in last Tuesday’s election. They lost most of the close gubernatorial contests, lost control of a number of state legislative chambers, lost seats in the House of Representatives, and lost control of the U.S. Senate.

On the surface, it would appear that California stood against this tide. At the time of this writing, the Democrats have lost a few seats in the legislature and the congressional delegation, but they once again swept the statewide offices, from governor to secretary of state. Unlike the rest of the country, where the conversation is about which party controls the legislature, in California the conversation is about whether the Democrats will have a supermajority.

But scratch just beneath the surface, and it turns out California is not so different after all. A clean statewide sweep is not the best measure of performance, since those races can hinge more on candidate personalities or other idiosyncrasies than the lower-profile contests down-ballot do.

A better test is to compare Democratic performance in assembly and congressional races to races in the same districts two years ago. (State senate races can’t be compared this way because these districts were drawn differently this year.) The graph below shows the relationship between the Democratic vote share in this year’s assembly and congressional elections and the same two years ago, for races contested by both parties in both years (which means none of the same-party contests made possible by the new “top two” primary are included). The diagonal line marks no change: points above the line are districts where the Democrats did better, and points below are districts where they did worse. In the overwhelming majority of races, the Democratic candidate did worse this year. Moreover, this was true whether the Democrat won a large share of the vote in 2012 (farther to the right on the graph) or a small share (farther to the left).

Democrats in California’s congressional races also performed about as well as Democrats in other states. The second graph below compares California House races to others. The cloud of grey circles represents House races in other states, and as we can see, the California races fall well within it. This shows that Democrats in California did about as badly this year as Democratic candidates everywhere else.

It was a tough cycle for Democrats for a lot of reasons—their president is unpopular, the economy’s growth has not reached a broad swath of the electorate, and the president’s party is usually punished at least a little bit in midterm elections. But the story that California Democrats somehow avoided the fate of the rest of their party, at least for down-ballot races, doesn’t receive much support from the data.

Three Lessons About California’s Election Reforms

California got its second taste of two important reforms yesterday: legislative and congressional districts drawn by an independent redistricting commission, and a “top-two” primary system that allowed voters to choose any candidate in the primary, regardless of party, and advanced the top two vote-getters, also regardless of party, to the fall election. Both went into effect in 2012.

How did the reforms do this time around? This is really a question about the legislative and congressional races, since the statewide races weren’t affected by the redistricting and there were no same-party races at that level. The new districts were used for the first time only in the state senate races.

A first pass at the results (as they stand at the time of this writing) suggests three important conclusions:

  1. Competition was higher. Races were more competitive this year than before the reforms, though they were a little less competitive than in 2012. Among races between candidates of opposing parties, 15% had a margin of victory of less than 10 points, compared to 18% in 2012 and just 7% in the decade before. There were 25 same-party races (compared with 28 in 2012), almost exclusively in districts that would have been uncompetitive under the old primary system. (The only possible exception was Congressional District 25 just north of Los Angeles, where two Republicans faced off against each other in a district that might have been competitive for a Democrat under the right circumstances). Roughly one-quarter of those same-party races were decided by less than 10 points, down slightly from 2012.

  2. The establishment did pretty well. Despite the extra competition, most races turned out as they might have before the reforms. In other words, incumbents and candidates endorsed by their party fared well. All but seven of the 114 incumbents across state assembly, state senate, and U.S. House races won reelection, although fewer incumbents ran in the senate’s new districts (50%) compared to the assembly (70%) or Congress (89%). One incumbent in a same-party race is losing this cycle (Raul Bocanegra in Assembly District 39), compared to six who lost in 2012 (two of whom were running against another incumbent). The average margin of victory for incumbents (33%) was about the same as in 2012 (33%) and in the decade before (31%). In the same-party races where only one candidate was endorsed by the party, that candidate won 15 out of 18 times, compared to 12 of 16 in 2012.

  3. Minor parties continued to struggle. One criticism of the top-two system is that minor-party and no-party-preference candidates find it more difficult to survive the first-round election to reach the fall runoff. This year, only seven such candidates managed it, four of them by running write-in campaigns in races where there was otherwise no formal major-party opposition. None of these candidates was elected on Tuesday (though such candidates rarely won before the reforms, either).

It will likely take more time for the impact of redistricting and election reforms to be clear, but for the time being, the results are falling into some predictable patterns. As voters, candidates, and campaign consultants wrap their heads around the idea of the top two, we may see further evolution of this system. But for now, the reforms have transformed certain aspects of California elections—such as increasing the number of competitive races and allowing same party runoffs in the fall—while leaving the broader landscape unchanged.

Drought Watch: What If 2015 Is Dry?

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

Three consecutive years of drought have depleted California’s water storage, brought hardship to the agricultural sector, and led to stringent emergency conservation measures in cities throughout the state. In October, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its outlook for next winter, and the preliminary modeling suggests more of the same. So what, if anything, should the state do differently next year?

The State Water Resources Control Board, which administers water rights in California, is asking this very question. In May of this year, the board limited surface water diversions (a process called “curtailment”) for thousands of water users for the first time since the 1976–77 drought. The board followed a century-old system that cuts back diversions based on the seniority of the water right. During curtailments, this system—often referred to as “first in time, first in right”—gives priority to those who have the longest history of water use or those who have property that lies along a river. Few, except perhaps those who were not asked to cut back, were happy with how this process went, so the board sought input on how to improve water allocation next year.

In collaboration with a number of our colleagues, we made recommendations to the board for improving the efficiency and fairness of the curtailment process. Our letter, posted in full on the UC Davis Center for Watershed Science’s Californiawaterblog.com, makes the following recommendations:

Modernize curtailments. Last year’s approach was based upon limited information about available flows and water use. Because of this, the board was forced to curtail whole groups of water users, rather than identifying individual users based on their seniority. For example, on many rivers the board curtailed everyone who had a water right that post-dated 1914, the year our modern rights system was established. In the coming year, the board can significantly improve curtailments by taking advantage of existing tools that forecast flow and estimate location and amount of use.

In addition, this year the board did not undertake significant curtailments until late May, more than two months after the irrigation season began. We recommend that the board announce curtailments much earlier in the year so that water managers can better plan to seek alternative supplies or implement additional conservation actions.

Clarify policy on the environment and public health and safety. This year, the board, with some minor exceptions, chose not to specify the amount of water that should be set aside to protect public health and safety, nor did it set priorities for trade-offs between meeting environmental needs and satisfying water rights. If, as predicted, 2015 turns out to be dry, the board will need to confront these issues head on. We argue that the laws governing water use require the board to set and implement policies on these issues. In addition, we recommend that the board create an independent scientific advisory panel that would help to inform decisions about environmental trade-offs.

These changes will be useful, even if it rains this winter. Recurring droughts are a part of California’s climate, and by modernizing how we allocate our water resources during times of scarcity we can be better prepared for the coming year—and future droughts.

Voters More Optimistic, Less Engaged

A lot has changed since Californians cast ballots just four years ago.

Likely voters today are feeling much better about the direction and economic outlook of the state. In October 2010, most (77%) said that the state was headed in the wrong direction. In our latest survey, likely voters are much more positive about the state’s future—although they are still more likely to say wrong direction (54%) than right direction (40%). Similarly, in October 2010 less than a quarter of likely voters (20%) expected good economic times in the upcoming year and far more (65%) expected bad times. Today, the mood is decidedly different, with 42% expecting good times and 47% expecting bad times. In October 2010, most likely voters (59%) named jobs and the economy as the state’s most important issue. Today, just 30% name it as the top issue, which barely keeps it in first place, while 28% name water and the drought. Further, in September 2010 nearly all likely voters (90%) called the state budget situation a big problem—today, that number is 62%.

This year, likely voters are paying less attention to news about the candidates for governor than they did four years ago, when the race involved an open seat and a high-profile contest. In October 2010, an overwhelming majority were very (39%) or fairly closely (50%) paying attention to news about gubernatorial candidates. In our latest survey, just half of likely voters were doing so (18% very, 34% fairly). In addition, there is a big enthusiasm gap. Fewer voters today say they are “more enthusiastic about voting than usual” (53% 2010, 40% today).

In 2010, when many people were tuned into the top of the ticket race, nearly 60 percent of registered voters turned out to vote. With far fewer voters paying attention to the gubernatorial race—and with the lack of a Congressional senate race—what can we expect in 2014? Will concerns about the drought and the state budget drive people to the polls—and if so, how will this translate into votes on Proposition 1, the water bond, and Proposition 2, the establishment of a rainy day fund? Stay tuned to PPIC as we continue to follow the November 2014 election.

Video Highlights Survey’s Election Findings

The October PPIC Statewide Survey was the focus of a briefing last week in Sacramento, where research associate Jui Shrestha summarized the findings. After her presentation, David Lesher, PPIC’s director of government affairs, pointed to some survey findings to watch as the campaigns and election play out.

  • The governor’s race: Jerry Brown leads by 16 points among likely voters, but other findings are less overwhelmingly in his favor. Statewide, Brown has the support of just a slim majority of likely voters, 52 percent. And he trails Neel Kashkari among some groups of likely voters—those in Orange/San Diego Counties, for example.

  • Voter enthusiasm: Likely voters paid much more attention to news of the gubernatorial candidates in 2006—the last election in which there was an incumbent—than they are doing today. Likely voters overall are also showing lower levels of enthusiasm today than in the 2010 or 2012 elections. These findings suggest that low voter turnout is likely, which will color the results.

  • Proposition 2: Placed on the ballot in a bipartisan vote of the legislature and endorsed by both the California Republican Party and by Governor Brown, this constitutional amendment to create a rainy day fund is struggling for majority support. While support has increased since September, just 49 percent of likely voters favor it today. Less than half of those who live in the San Francisco Bay Area and of those with incomes of $80,000 or more say they would vote yes on Proposition 2.

Drought Watch: What’s in Proposition 1?

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

California voters are deciding the fate of Proposition 1—a $7.5 billion water bond. If Prop 1 passes, the water sector will get a big boost in funding. Prop 1 contains $7.12 billion in new debt (the remaining $400 million dollars is money that would be re-authorized from previously passed bonds).

So what kind of water projects will be funded if Prop. 1 passes? The bond focuses mainly on water supply ($3.6 billion) with the majority ($2.7 billion) designated as matching funds for storage projects. These matching funds are intended to support up to half the costs of projects that store water either in surface reservoirs or underground aquifers, and they can only be used to fund “public benefits.” Public benefits include, among other things, better flood protection and recreation opportunities, as well as improved environmental conditions. For instance, expanding surface reservoirs makes it possible to store more cold water, which can be released during warm months to support salmon habitat. Likewise, expanding ponds to recharge groundwater basins can create bird habitat.

The California Water Commission will determine which storage projects receive these funds through a competitive process. The rest of the water supply dollars are mainly for matching funds for water recycling and desalination projects ($725 million), with $100 million each for water conservation and groundwater sustainability planning.

Proposition 1 also has funds for the five areas PPIC has identified as critically underfunded “fiscal orphans” in our recent study of water system finance: ecosystems, drinking water quality, flood protection, stormwater pollution management, and integrated water resources management. Of the funds designated for water quality improvements, $520 million is intended for disadvantaged communities and $800 million is for cleaning up groundwater basins that have been contaminated with industrial and agricultural chemicals. Just over half a billion dollars is designed to encourage agencies to collaborate on water management priorities, with funds going to different regions for priority projects in Integrated Regional Water Management plans. These projects would overlap with the previously mentioned categories, and they would need to improve regional self-reliance and help adapt to the effects of climate change.

Since 2000, California voters have approved six water bonds, totaling nearly $20 billion dollars. These bonds looked a little different than Prop 1. Ecosystem improvement and flood protection were the main priorities, with smaller amounts for drinking water quality, integrated management, stormwater, and water supply projects (these bonds also had large amounts for parks and public access). While these bonds provided welcome support to these areas, they also came with fiscal tradeoffs: bonds are repaid with general fund tax dollars that also support other state programs.

The current drought is likely helping the bond’s chances of passage: according to the most recent PPIC Statewide Survey a record-high 68% of all adults say that the supply of water is a big problem in their part of the state. In this context, it is important to keep in mind that while continued investments in our water system will help us be better prepared for future droughts, this bond is not designed to provide immediate relief from the current one. Most water projects take time to design and build. And, whether or not Proposition 1 passes, the state’s water system will face significant challenges that require funding sources more reliable than a bond can provide.

A Cautionary Tale for Fiscal Reformers

One of the biggest surprises in the PPIC Statewide Surveys this fall has been the inability of Proposition 2 (aka the rainy day fund) to garner majority support from voters. The measure—which was placed on the November ballot by the governor and a unanimous vote of the legislature—allows for annual transfers of revenues into an account to be used only for fiscal emergencies and to pay off state debt.

Support did rise from 43 percent in our September poll to 49 percent in October. This may be a sign that Proposition 2 can defy the conventional political wisdom about ballot measures starting out with less than 50 percent support being doomed to fail. Certainly, its supporters find this trend encouraging. But, given the widespread support for the idea of a rainy day fund in earlier PPIC polls, why is Proposition 2 struggling to achieve majority support? Further analysis of our survey results offers a cautionary tale about the political pitfalls of fiscal reforms.

We have been tracking a wide array of fiscal reforms in our polls, including the idea of a rainy day fund: “Do you favor or oppose increasing the size of the state’s rainy day fund and requiring above-average revenues to be deposited into it for use during economic downturns?” In the five times this question was asked before Proposition 2 was put on the ballot, likely voter support hovered around 70 percent. Today, support for the rainy day fund idea has fallen to 55 percent among likely voters. This suggests a strong link between supporting the rainy day fund concept and voting yes on Proposition 2—in fact, 7 in 10 of those who would vote yes on Proposition 2 express support for a rainy day fund. More important, why has a fiscal reform that was consistently and highly regarded fallen out of favor with so many voters?

We looked at the possibility that Californians are less inclined to support a rainy day fund because the state’s finances have been improving. But our tracking question on state budget perceptions found that slightly more likely voters say that the state budget situation is a big problem today (62%) than in January (56%). Moreover, those who see the state budget as a big problem are less likely to favor a rainy day fund today (48%) than they were in January (65%).

The steep decline in support for a highly popular idea seems to have political overtones. Since January, support for the rainy day fund idea has dropped from a solid majority to below 50 percent among several groups: Republicans (72% January, 47% October), conservatives (69% January, 47% October), those who disapprove of the job performance of both the governor (65% January, 42% October) and the legislature (65% January, 47% October), and those who say the state is going in the wrong direction (67% January, 48% October). Meanwhile, Democratic governor Jerry Brown has been touting the virtues of Proposition 2 on the campaign trail, and Republican leaders who supported it have been silent.

In an election context, the rainy day fund idea has thus become politically polarizing. The governor’s success in rallying his supporters around Proposition 2 is reflected in its recent rise in the polls. But the rainy day fund idea has lost favor among Republicans and conservatives who used to be loyal supporters. Today, support for idea is much higher among Brown voters (68%) than Kashkari voters (43%). Governor Brown may need to do more to reassure the Democratic base of the long-term benefits of a rainy day fund to prevent Proposition 2 from falling short of majority support.

In short, a rainy day fund that once had strong backing across party lines has become a divisive idea. This is a reminder that even a seemingly uncontroversial issue with unanimous support in the legislature is subject to political redefinition in the heat of an election. Future tax and spending reforms may face an even more challenging path if they can’t ride on the coattails of an incumbent governor with a 54 percent approval rating and 52 percent supporting his reelection.

The lesson is that the popularity of any given reform can fade unless voters know that it is supported by leaders who share their partisan views and reflect their political values.

Video: Making College Possible

At a time when California’s economy needs more college graduates, a new PPIC report examines the role of grants and scholarships in making higher education both accessible and helping students graduate. Hans Johnson, the report’s author and PPIC Bren Fellow, talked about his findings at a briefing last week in Sacramento.

He found that although total financial assistance available through federal grants, Cal Grants, institutional aid, and private scholarships has increased, it has not kept pace with the actual cost of attending California State University and community colleges. These are the California colleges that enroll most low-income students in California—a state in which nearly 60 percent of K–12 students qualify for free and reduced price lunch programs.

“If we want the economic ladder to success to work in California, we need more students to go to and complete college,” he said. “And given our student population, a lot of those students will be from very low-income families.”

He recommended strategies to make college more affordable and accessible. They include directing any additional aid to low-income students and helping more students complete financial aid forms.