Author: admin

Now Hiring: Skilled Health Workers

Changing medical technology, an aging population, and new health care policies have raised important questions about the workforce that will be needed to care for patients in the future. These issues were featured in a new report from PPIC—California’s Healthcare Workforce Needs: Training Allied Workers—and discussed at a luncheon in Sacramento on Friday that included a briefing by coauthor Shannon McConville, PPIC research associate.

The report notes that California will have to add 450,000 jobs to its health workforce over the next decade. With nearly 40 percent of these additional health jobs expected to require some college training below a bachelor’s degree, training programs at California’s community colleges and private two-year institutions will play an important role.

Participating in the panel discussion were Dr. Jocelyn Freeman Garrick, director of the Alameda County Health Pipeline Partnership; Catherine Martin, vice president of the California Hospital Association; and PPIC research fellow Sarah Bohn, a report coauthor. The panel, which was moderated by PPIC research director Patrick Murphy, explored the challenges faced by both public and private higher education institutions in keeping up with rapidly advancing skills requirements in the health care industry. Topics included differences between public and private schools and programs and partnerships that can train Californians for health workforce needs.

A Closer Look at Early Jail Releases

Almost three years after California’s public safety realignment took effect, county sheriffs have few options for handling jail populations that are approaching historical highs reached in 2007. To help address these capacity challenges and responsibilities, the legislature recently passed SB 863, which dedicated $500 million to county jail construction. This is in addition to the $1.7 billion provided through two previous measures: AB 900 in 2007 and SB 1022 in 2012. Overall, these three construction programs will add more than 13,000 jail beds across the state. However, given projected growth in the overall population—and if there are no new policies and practices that reduce incarceration—this investment in county jails will probably be insufficient to meet the state’s long term needs.

After realignment began in October 2011, the number of inmates in state prisons decreased quickly and substantially, as intended. But the prison population is still too large to meet the federal mandate and has recently started to increase somewhat. In that same period, the county jail population has increased by about 11,000 inmates. Because relying solely on expanding jail and prison capacity to handle future pressures would be very costly and would have a limited crime preventive effect, serious consideration should be given to sentencing reform. Conversations about sentencing changes are ongoing in Sacramento and an initiative reducing the penalty for certain property and drug offenses (Proposition 47) is on the November ballot.

As county sheriffs wait for long-term and sustainable solutions to the incarceration problem, they must handle the growing and fluctuating demand for jail beds. This is particularly true in the 19 counties facing court-ordered jail population caps. Releasing inmates early because of space constraints is nothing new for sheriffs. In fact, data from the Board of State and Community Corrections Jail Profile Survey show that the current level of about 13,000 of these releases statewide per month is well short of the highs of 16,000–17,000 reached in 2007.

Interestingly, these data also show that although the jail population continues to creep up, the number of monthly early releases increased but recently appears to have plateaued. After reaching a post-realignment high of 14,553 in August 2012, early releases declined to a monthly average of roughly 12,900. In other words, the data does not indicate a recent surge in the number of releases and they have certainly not approached the 17,000 level recently reported in the media.

However, these releases do raise public safety concerns. The leveling off of early releases despite the growing demand for jail beds suggests that sheriffs share these concerns. The extent to which early releases jeopardize public safety depends not only on the number of inmates released but on which ones are now spending time on the streets instead of in jail. There is no widely available information about how, and more importantly whether, sheriffs effectively identify and release the lowest risk inmates. Taking steps to assess these decisions would help ensure that future releases protect public safety.

Drought Watch: Crises as Catalyst for Policy Change

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

Today Governor Brown signed three bills that require portions of the state to start managing groundwater sustainably. These bills are historic. Until today, California was the only western state that did not regulate groundwater, typically the source of more than one-third of the state’s supply, and much more during dry years.

Why, after a century of failing to address much-needed reform, has the state finally acted on this problem? It’s the drought.

The problem of groundwater overuse is nothing new in California. Calls for reform began as far back as the early 1900s, when severe excess pumping in many groundwater basins began to cause problems. Chronic overdraft—taking more out of the ground than nature puts back in—has left many basins severely depleted.

When the current drought arrived and communities and farms turned to groundwater to make up for shortages in surface water supply, a century of neglect—the hydrologic equivalent of deficit spending—caught up with California. The groundwater that, managed well, should have been cheap and plentiful, became expensive and scarce, leading to an economic and social crisis. The well-publicized effects of unsustainable pumping include sinking ground, dry wells, crumbling canals and roads, intense competition to drill deeper (and more costly) wells, the fallowing of more than 410,000 acres of farmland, and losses of more than $2 billion in farm revenues and more than 17,000 farm-related jobs. These factors combined to create pressure to tackle what had been, up to now, off limits to reform.

In our 2011 book, Managing California’s Water: From Conflict to Reconciliation, we note that significant advances in state water policy are often tied to droughts and floods, along with the inevitable lawsuits that follow. Extreme events like the current drought reveal fundamental weaknesses in California’s water management policies and practices. Perhaps more importantly, they create pressure on government to respond.

This is the silver lining of water crises in California: they are often the way we get things done. (The comprehensive reform of flood management enacted in 2007 was spurred on by the graphic images of Hurricane Katrina two years earlier, for example.) Indeed, one strategy for advancing water management reform is to plan and prepare for the inevitable, and then take advantage of a crisis to push ahead on needed reforms.

This year’s groundwater package is indeed historic, but California still has a long way to go in improving the way it manages water. With our changing climate, we should expect more frequent droughts and floods (and lawsuits)—so there will be no shortage of opportunities to tackle other problems in the future.

California’s Secretary of State Candidates in Conversation

The two candidates running for California secretary of state bring different resumes to the campaign but found much to agree on in a conversation sponsored by PPIC Thursday. Alex Padilla, California state senator, and Pete Peterson, executive director of the Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University, talked about their priorities in a question-and-answer session moderated by Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.

Both candidates advocated improving the use of technology—to engage voters and improve the voting experience, speed up the disclosure of campaign contributions, and improve the business registration process. Both advocated better use of data and research from outside organizations—from civic engagement groups to the U.S. Census to think tanks and universities—to more proactively register and inform voters. Some of the research PPIC has done on voter participation figured into the discussion of voter engagement, including Voter Turnout in Primary Elections and Expanding California’s Electorate: Will Recent Reforms Increase Voter Turnout?

Each candidate listed a number of goals for their term in office, if elected. Asked to reduce their voter turnout goals to a number, Padilla said he was committed to the addition of 1 million more active voters to the rolls and Peterson said he expected to generate an increase in turnout of 5 or 10 percent.

The event was part of PPIC’s 2014 Speaker Series on California’s Future. PPIC does not support, endorse, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Louise Henry Bryson Joins PPIC Board of Directors

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]I am delighted to announce the election of Louise Henry Bryson—a leader in the arts, media, and entertainment industry—to PPIC’s board of directors.

Louise is the former president of distribution for Lifetime Television and executive vice president and general manager of Lifetime Movie Network. Previously, she was senior vice president for Fox Network, where she was responsible for distribution of Fox’s cable television channels and for station negotiations throughout the United States. She retired in 2008.

Louise’s professional experience, leadership talents, and commitment to public service make her an ideal addition to PPIC’s board. We look forward to her contributions as PPIC works to achieve its mission: informing and improving public policy through independent, nonpartisan research.

Louise began her career as a writer and producer in public television and radio. She is a trustee of WETA public broadcasting in Washington, D.C., and a lifetime trustee of Southern California Public Radio. She was board chair of KCET public television in Los Angeles and a member of the PBS National Board, which honored her with the 1998 Award for Excellence in Public Television Leadership. She was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2010.

Louise has a strong record of public service. She served on the board of trustees for the J. Paul Getty Trust for 12 years, including four as board chair. She was named chair emerita in 2010. Louise is currently a trustee of the American Funds. She is a member of the board of directors at a variety of nonprofit institutions, including Pomona College, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Huntington Memorial Hospital, and the California Community Foundation.

She has master’s degrees in business and teaching from Stanford University.

As a new board member, Louise has been elected to an initial three-year term and is eligible for a maximum of three three-year terms. Donna Lucas, founder and chief executive officer of Lucas Public Affairs, is chair of the PPIC board. The other board members are myself; Ruben Barrales, president and CEO of GROW Elect; María Blanco, vice president of civic engagement at the California Community Foundation; attorney Brigitte Bren; Walter B. Hewlett, member of the board of directors at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; Phil Isenberg, vice chair of the Delta Stewardship Council; David Mas Masumoto, author and farmer; Steven Merksamer, senior partner at Neilsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Gross & Leoni, LLP; Kim Polese, chairman of ClearStreet, Inc.; and Thomas Sutton, retired chairman and CEO of the Pacific Life Insurance Company. You can find more information about the PPIC board on PPIC.org.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Improving the Vote-by-Mail System

For the first time in eight years, there is no incumbent running for California secretary of state. This offers a great opportunity to step back and consider where California’s elections are, and where they ought to go next. (You can hear what the candidates have to say about the future of elections at a PPIC event on Thursday, September 11.)

Any such assessment must take a hard look at voting by mail. We see more voters using this option in every passing election, with the growth actually accelerating in recent primaries. If the trend continues, about 57 percent of the ballots in this fall’s election will be cast this way.

The question is no longer whether vote-by-mail is a sensible way to run our elections; it is now how best to manage the vote-by-mail elections we already have. This has put a number of critical issues on the table:

  1. Signature verification. The signature on a vote-by-mail ballot must be compared to the one on file to ensure that the appropriate person cast the ballot. This slows down the process, leaving the outcomes of a few races in doubt for weeks after Election Day. Some counties have been moving to verification by computer to deal with the backlog, but the standards for this sort of verification are murky. The new secretary of state can help clarify which technology is permissible and how this technology should be used.

  2. Late ballots. In a recent PPIC report, we noted that, while the vast majority of vote-by-mail ballots arrive on time, thousands of ballots arrive late and are not counted at all. The legislature has passed a bill (SB 29) that would allow most of these late ballots to be counted. If Governor Brown signs this bill, the next secretary of state will need to monitor the new status quo as it unfolds. In particular, county registrars may face a surge in late ballots as more voters take advantage of the new relaxed standard.

  3. Shrinking postal service. As email and the Internet have grown in popularity, the U.S. Postal Service has been forced to lay off staff and consolidate processing centers. Our PPIC analysis suggests that these changes have not yet created problems for vote–by-mail, but it is a development that deserves constant monitoring.

  4. All vote-by-mail? When 70 percent of the ballots in an election are vote-by-mail, one wonders whether it’s time to abandon the old polling place approach and mandate the vote-by-mail system for everyone. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington use such a system, and it has generally worked well. There are a number of arguments for the change. The persistence of a dual system may add to the complexity of counting ballots, especially with yet another system—same-day registration—coming on-line in the next few years. Moreover, while the evidence for vote-by-mail’s effect on voter turnout is mixed, it generally suggests a small but positive effect. Finally, given the fact that county registrars continue to struggle with small budgets and increasing demands, an all vote-by-mail system would offer a much-needed cost savings.

We will probably never reach a point where every voter voluntarily votes by mail. There will always be some, both young and old, who prefer to show up at a polling place. But we must think carefully about accommodating the new reality of a mostly vote-by-mail system, and how best to make it work for everyone.

Who Are California’s Independent Voters?

The partisan composition of California’s electorate continues to evolve as an increasing number of voters register as independent or decline-to-state. Today, independents make up 21 percent of the electorate, while Democrats make up 43 percent and Republicans 28 percent. Since 2006, the share of voters registering as independent has increased 2 points, while Republican registration has declined 6 points and Democratic registration has not changed. Looking back further, we see that independent registration has more than doubled since 1994 (10% to 21%), while Democratic registration has declined 6 points and Republican registration is down 9 points.

What do we know about independent voters in California?

Among independents considered likely to vote by the PPIC Statewide Survey, about three in 10 identify themselves as liberal and the same number say they’re conservative. Four in 10 say they are middle-of-the-road. About four in 10 independent likely voters say they lean toward the Democratic Party, while about three in 10 lean toward the Republican Party. Three in 10 say they lean toward neither major party.

Given these party leanings, it may not be surprising that independent likely voters often agree with Democrats on issues that divide voters along party lines. For example, 77 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents are in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Republicans are opposed (55% oppose, 41% favor). And 81 percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independents are in favor of taxing the wealthy, while 68 percent of Republicans are opposed. But on other issues that divide partisans, independents are themselves split. For example, while strong majorities of partisan likely voters fall on each party’s side of the debate over the size of government (Democrats: 63% higher taxes and more services; Republicans: 79% lower taxes and fewer services), independent likely voters are divided (51% lower taxes and fewer services, 44% higher taxes and more services).

No matter where they stand on issues and ideologies, independent likely voters tend to have unfavorable views of political parties. Solid majorities have unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party (59%, 38% favorable) and the Republican Party (73%, 25% favorable), and 41 percent have an unfavorable opinion of both parties.

These weaker ties to the major parties may help explain why independents make up a disproportionate share (30%) of those we consider infrequent voters. Will they turn out this November? In an election year in which only about half of independents (49%) say they are closely following news about gubernatorial candidates, this is an open question for all contenders on the ballot.

Drought Watch: Rethinking Urban Water Pricing

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

The California Water Resources Control Board adopted a statewide policy last month requiring local agencies to implement drought plans, including restrictions on outdoor water use. Local agencies have responded in a variety of ways. Some have imposed mandatory cutbacks while others are still only asking their customers to make voluntary cutbacks. Mandatory water use restrictions can be more effective and, according to the July PPIC Statewide Survey, 75 percent of Californians say they strongly favor them. So why aren’t more water agencies enacting mandatory cutbacks during this crisis?

Last month, Jay Lund—a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis and an adjunct research fellow at PPIC— outlined some of the factors that might cause local agencies to shy away from mandatory restrictions. One important factor is that when conservation measures work, agencies sell less water and their revenues fall. But the costs of providing water services do not decrease as much, so agency balance sheets can end up in the red. As a result, investments in system maintenance and upgrade generally take a hit, and agencies often have to increase rates. This sends a confusing signal to customers, who just did what was asked of them.

There is an alternative: drought pricing. Charging more per gallon during drought years provides an additional conservation incentive and ensures that agencies can cover costs while they are selling less water. According to a June survey by the State Water Resources Control Board, only 4 percent of urban agencies have enacted drought pricing strategies. The city of Roseville is one community using the drought pricing tool, which was adopted—and vetted with customers—before the drought hit. In June, Roseville implemented a temporary 15 percent drought surcharge while also mandating a 20 percent reduction in water use.

Like most things that alter the status quo, drought pricing policies require effective communication with ratepayers. Agencies need to emphasize the need for higher prices alongside increased conservation during droughts to ensure customer buy-in. But a big advantage of a drought pricing policy is that customers understand in advance that prices need to go up to keep their water system solvent, rather than feeling blindsided by a rate increase after the fact. While they require additional effort—and advance planning—by local agencies, drought pricing policies result in better financials and customer relations while contributing to the primary goal of reducing water use during times of scarcity.

Recidivism and Realignment

Early feedback is starting to come in about corrections realignment, the 2011 shift of responsibility for more than 30,000 criminal offenders from the state level to the counties. The issue continues to dominate discussion in the California public safety community. But there are still many questions to be answered about how counties are implementing the changes and what effect realignment is having on criminal behavior.

Last Friday, research fellow Ryken Grattet spoke at a Sacramento briefing about PPIC’s latest research, which looked at recidivism rates for released offenders now being supervised by county probation departments. The study found that offenders released to counties that emphasized reentry services did better than those released to counties that emphasized traditional law enforcement, at least in the first months after realignment. After the briefing, Grattet was joined in the question-and-answer period by his coauthor, research fellow Mia Bird.

Drought Watch: Trends in Urban Water Use

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

Most of California is now in an exceptional drought, but water use statewide has actually increased over the last year. In response, the state has imposed short-term restrictions intended to help us get through the current drought. As state and local water agencies look beyond the current emergency for ways to adapt to a future in which droughts are likely to be more frequent and more severe, it is instructive to examine and compare urban use in two relatively normal water years, 2000 and 2010.

First, the good news: Total statewide urban water use (for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes) decreased by 12 percent from 2000 to 2010, even as California’s population increased by more than three million. Reductions have been especially significant in central and southern California, where investments in conservation programs and new technologies seem to be paying off. In the commercial and industrial sectors, water use fell 36 percent and 18 percent, respectively, while residential interior water use declined by 20 percent overall and 27 percent per capita. The Great Recession probably played a role in these reductions, so it will be interesting to see if this trend holds as the economy continues its recovery.

Now for the bad news: Outdoor water use for both residential exteriors and large (commercial or public) landscapes rose 12 percent across the state between 2000 and 2010. This trend was largely driven by increases in southern California—in marked contrast to the region’s reductions in indoor water use. And it is likely to persist as California’s population continues to grow, especially in hot and arid inland areas with a higher proportion of single-family homes (which use twice as much water outdoors per household as multi-family buildings) and large lots.

One important takeaway is that more stringent building codes, increasing efficiency requirements, and new technologies seem to have resulted in more efficient indoor water use. But when it comes to landscaping, any improvements in irrigation technology seem to have been offset by our taste for large lawns and plants that need a lot of water (and our habit of overwatering them). To encourage long-term reductions in outdoor water use, agencies can implement new pricing structures, turf buy-back programs, and public education programs emphasizing drought-friendly landscaping. After our current water emergency ends, these long-term incentives and outreach efforts can help us be better prepared for future droughts.

(The map below shows the change in per capita outdoor urban water use between 2000 and 2010 in each hydrologic region. To see details of the state’s hydrologic regions, including county boundaries, visit our Map Room.)

Chart source: California Department of Water Resources.