admin – Page 4 – Public Policy Institute of California

Californians Opposed to Governor’s Transportation Plan

In PPIC’s most recent statewide survey, 61% of Californians say that spending more money on the maintenance of roads, highways, and bridges is very important for California’s future quality of life and economic vitality. At the same time, a majority of Californians (54%) oppose the governor’s proposal to do so. His transportation funding plan would provide $43 billion of additional spending for state and local transportation projects, with money coming from a new $65 vehicle fee and an increase in gasoline and diesel taxes. Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to the governor’s proposal and independents are divided. Among Democrats, a slight majority (53%) favor the plan while 42% oppose it.

Californians’ reluctance to support the governor’s plan is understandable in light of another survey finding: many are not satisfied with the way transportation funds are being spent now. When asked what is most needed to improve the quality of California’s roads and surface transportation, 51% of adults choose the wiser use of existing funds. This response contrasts with what Californians said when asked a similar question about higher education funding in December. Just a little over a third (36%) said that the wiser use of existing funds alone would significantly improve the quality of public higher education.

Among Californians who oppose the governor’s proposal, 64% say that the wiser use of existing funds is the best way to significantly improve the quality of the state’s roads. Only 30% say that both wiser use of existing funds and more state funding is needed.

Across parties, 80% of Republicans and 69% of independents who oppose the governor’s plan think that the wiser use of existing funds is the best approach. Notably, Democrats who oppose the governor’s plan are far more likely than those who support it to say that the wiser use of funds alone is a way to improve California’s roads, highways, and bridges (55% to 31%). If the governor hopes to win the support of some of those 42% of Democrats who oppose his plan, he will likely have to overcome the perception that transportation funds are not being put to good use now.

Learn more

Read the January PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Yesterday’s Dams Face Tomorrow’s Floods

The crisis at Oroville Dam on the Feather River eased yesterday as state officials gained control over the damaged spillway and allowed the more than 180,000 evacuees to return home. Prospects are good that dam operators will be able to control releases through the remainder of the wet season. Now that the immediate crisis is past, we should take the opportunity to review how we manage California’s big dams—and what changes would help us do so more effectively in future.

Water—whether too much or too little—has a way of revealing weaknesses in design and decision making. For Oroville Dam—the tallest dam in the nation—the crisis began with poor maintenance of its main spillway compounded by wholly inadequate design of the emergency spillway, a known problem. But the crisis at Oroville also raise five broader concerns that California will have to reckon with:

Aging dams. Most of the state’s 1,400 large dams were designed using slide rules and based on simplistic assumptions about hydrology and earthquakes. These dams are marvels of engineering considering when they were built, but many are in need of major upgrades in infrastructure and operations. California needs a comprehensive plan for evaluating and modernizing these structures.
A changing climate. California’s dams must be adapted to address new risks from a changing climate. These dams were built to respond to early- to mid-20th century conditions. The climate has shifted since that time, and the bulk of climate simulations point to significant changes in the near future. Our dry periods are getting both drier and warmer, and our wet periods are getting wetter with more precipitation falling as rain rather than snow. Part of the problem at Oroville is that the warm temperatures have meant there’s more water to manage right now than usual because less of it is staying in the snowpack. The past seven years—which included five years of record warm, dry conditions bracketed by extremely wet ones—is a glimpse into our future. It is time to rethink how we are going to operate and maintain our dams to respond to these changes.
Conflicting goals. We may be asking too much of our dams. For example, Oroville Dam provides water supply, hydropower, flood management, recreation, and ecosystem flows for rivers and the Delta. Flood management is in tension with the other services because a mostly empty reservoir—bad for the other services—is the best hedge against floods. By design, Oroville was relatively full when the latest floods arrived, reflecting its top priority (water supply) and compounding flood risk. It may be time to rethink the balance of objectives for all of our large, multipurpose dams.
Rigid rules. Adjusting course on dams—whether by changing the infrastructure or the way they are operated—is difficult. Licenses for non-federal dams like Oroville—administered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—last for 30–50 years. These lock in place all aspects of dam operation for several generations and require herculean efforts to overcome. Moreover, flood operations on all dams are mandated by the US Army Corps of Engineers and require an act of Congress to change. When it comes to changing course on dams, institutional inertia is a powerful countervailing force.
High cost of improvements. Any change in course is likely to be very expensive. California relied heavily on federal support for construction of many of its large, multipurpose dams. Support ended decades ago and is unlikely to resume in the future. California is going to need a comprehensive funding plan for modernizing its dams and other flood management systems that does not rely on extensive federal support.

Most water crises have a silver lining. The recent drought spurred changes to the way we manage water scarcity in the state, resulting in one of the most important pieces of water legislation—the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act—in many decades. The crisis at Oroville should spur Californians to rethink how we manage our network of large dams. New management approaches, new technology, and new investments to modernize dams will be necessary to adapt to changing conditions, both today and tomorrow.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center flood resources page
Read California’s Water: Climate Change and Water (from California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)

Video: Ending the Housing Crisis

Sacramento’s mayor and San Diego’s mayor have different political perspectives, clearly evident in PPIC’s “Building California’s Future” event last week. Their views diverged on issues from high-speed rail to the voting requirements for passage of local transportation tax measures. But the mayors reached some consensus on one issue: the need for more housing and the difficulty of building the political will to end the state’s housing crisis.

“I don’t see the political coalition around housing that I see around transportation,” said Darrell Steinberg, Sacramento’s Democratic mayor.

“I could not agree more,” said Kevin Faulconer, San Diego’s Republican mayor. “It has not gotten the attention it should.”

Asked the single biggest action the state can take this year to help with our housing crisis, both mentioned regulatory reform. Steinberg said robust reform needs to be combined with a source of funding for affordable housing. He said he hoped the state can “combine these two prongs to make it easier to site housing and at the same time provide real funding to be able to subsidize and build affordable housing.”

Faulconer said reform of the 40-year-old California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is essential. Those who share his views contend that CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop housing developments, even those deemed environmentally friendly. Faulconer said the business and housing climate are important in attracting businesses to California communities.

“We have to have really clear rules of the road, we have to follow those rules of the road,” he said. “We have to get people through the process in a defined amount of time because time is money.”

Housing was also an important part of the discussion in the panel that followed the mayors’ conversation at the PPIC event. Participants included two county supervisors, Kristin Olsen of Stanislaus County and Joe Simitian of Santa Clara County, as well as Lucy Dunn, president and CEO, Orange County Business Council. John Diaz, editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle moderated.

Upgrading High School Math Requirements

California has not updated its math graduation requirements for 30 years and now lags behind other states in ensuring that high school graduates are ready for success in college and the workplace. Math graduation requirements can affect students’ participation in advanced math courses (e.g., algebra II), which in turn has an impact on their educational and economic outcomes over the long term.

Across the nation, California is one of three states that require only two years of math instruction for high school graduation. Other states typically require three years (27 states and the District of Columbia) or four years (17 states). From 2001 to 2016, 25 states made their graduation requirements more rigorous. In recent years, some states have even incorporated college- and career-readiness components, such as SAT or ACT scores, into their graduation standards. In contrast, California last updated its graduation requirements in 1986.

In the absence of changes at the state level, California’s public school districts and four-year institutions have taken the lead. Most of the state’s districts have independently updated their math graduation standards. During the 2015–16 school year, 63% of unified and high school districts supplemented the state minimum with an additional year of math, although larger districts with more than 20,000 students were somewhat less likely to do so. Moreover, both the California State University and University of California systems require three years of math, including algebra I, geometry, and algebra II (or equivalent).

For many students, taking only two years of math will not adequately prepare them for college and beyond. It’s time for California to update its graduation requirements to better align with district practices and other major statewide efforts to improve college readiness. Increasing the amount of math instruction required for high school graduation can encourage more students to take advanced math courses—which would increase their likelihood of graduating from high school and enrolling in college. It would also reduce the need for remedial education in college.

One concern is that more rigorous math requirements may prevent students from graduating high school. However, evidence from California districts and other states suggests that there is no correlation between high school graduation requirements and high school graduation rates.

Another concern is cost, as the state needs to fund any changes to graduation requirements (e.g., the cost of hiring more math teachers and offering more math courses). However, most districts already require three years of math, suggesting that funding may not be a big constraint. If the state sets higher minimum math requirements, the educational and economic benefits for California students will likely to outweigh the costs.

Learn more

Read the report College Readiness in California: A Look at Rigorous High School Course-Taking

Equity and Remedial Education at Community Colleges

PPIC research has shown that students from groups that are historically underrepresented in higher education are more likely to take a remedial—or developmental—course at some point in their college career. Our research also shows that these students are less likely to complete a college-level course in math or English—and less likely to meet their educational goals. At a time when California faces a shortfall of college-educated workers, this has profound implications for the state’s future. Given that more than half of Latinos and African Americans who pursue higher education attend community college, policymakers need to focus on closing access and achievement gaps.

A recent PPIC report found that 87% of both Latino and African American community college students took at least one developmental math or English course, compared to 70% of Asian and 73% of white students. Likewise, 86% of recipients of fee waivers from the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (BOGW) or Pell Grants—our proxy for low-income status—took at least one developmental math or English course.

A closer look reveals that Latino, African American, and low-income students are likely to be placed in developmental education at lower levels than other groups of students. This requires students to take a longer sequence of developmental courses—up to four semesters’ worth—and dramatically alters college trajectories. African American and Latino students make up 61% of students who enter the developmental math sequence four levels below college ready, but only 41% of students who begin one level below. Similarly, the share of low-income developmental math students who start four levels below college ready (82%) is significantly higher than the share that begin one level below (64%). This means that Latino, African American, and low-income students are more likely to spend valuable time and financial aid on courses that do not count toward a degree or transfer.

Equity issues are apparent not only in students’ participation in developmental education, but also in their outcomes. When we examine the completion of college-level math and English courses among students who started out in developmental education, we find that rates are lower for most underrepresented groups. For example, 39% of Asian students and 30% of white students who took a developmental math passed a college-level math course, compared to 24% of Latino and 14% of African American students. The same pattern holds true for English, where 59% of Asian students and 49% of white students successfully completed a college-level English course, compared to 42% of Latino and 28% of African American students. However, low-income students who enrolled in developmental education courses completed college-level courses (26% math and 45% English) at about the same rate as developmental students overall (27% math and 44% in English).

It is also important to look at the assessment and placement policies that place students into developmental courses. Our research found that these policies vary widely across the state’s 113 community colleges. As a result, some Latino and African American students may be enrolling in developmental education at higher rates, especially in math, simply because they attend colleges that set higher cut-off scores for placement into college courses.

Our recent findings suggest that developmental education, which is intended to help students succeed in college, may actually be contributing to college achievement and completion gaps. A multipronged approach that improves developmental education courses and streamlines assessment and placement policies can lead to more equitable student outcomes.

Learn more

Read Preparing Students for Success in California’s Community Colleges
Read Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Immigrants Are Key to the State’s High-Skilled Workforce

Immigrants are integral to California’s highly skilled workforce. As California’s demand for highly educated workers has outpaced the supply produced by its colleges and universities, immigrants have filled the gap. Immigrants now make up a substantial share of the state’s highly educated workers. Today, three of every ten highly educated workers in California is an immigrant, up from one in five in 1990. Immigrants are especially important in the state’s high tech sector, comprising 52% of college graduates who work in computer systems design and services and 57% of those in computer equipment and peripheral manufacturing (findings based on the 2013‒2015 American Community Survey).

Over time, the face of immigration to California has changed. Recent immigrants are more highly educated than immigrants who arrived earlier. In the past, most immigrants arrived from Latin America. But in recent years, most new immigrants to California are from Asia. Because many immigrants from Asia are highly educated, this regional shift has contributed to a change in immigrants’ education levels. Immigrants who have arrived in California in the past five years are among the most highly educated demographic group in the state, with more than half (52%) holding at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 35% of US-born Californians.

Immigrants to California from the seven countries that are the focus of President Trump’s executive order —Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen—also tend to be highly educated. According to the 2015 American Community Survey, California is home to 305,000 immigrants from these countries—35% of the total number of immigrants from these countries in the nation—with most (213,000) from Iran. Altogether, almost half (47%) of adult immigrants (ages 25‒64) from these countries have a bachelor’s or graduate degree, including 54% of those from Iran.

Given the contribution of highly educated immigrants to California’s economy, and especially to the state’s high tech sector, it is no wonder that many companies and state officials have raised concerns about the president’s executive order.

PPIC has projected that California faces a workforce skills gap and needs to increase the number of adults with a bachelor’s degree by an additional 1.1 million to meet workplace demands by 2030. These projections assume that the state will continue to attract substantial numbers of highly educated immigrants from abroad. Restrictions on the flow of those immigrants could exacerbate the projected workforce skills gap—and cause significant damage to the state’s economy.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

For-Profit Colleges Face an Uncertain Future

California’s private for-profit colleges are in flux now that the US Department of Education has parted ways with the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS)―one of the largest for-profit accreditation agencies. Former education secretary John B. King Jr. based his decision to reject ACICS’s bid to continue overseeing hundreds of colleges nationwide on findings that ACICS was allowing colleges such as ITT Tech and Corinthian Colleges (known as Everest College in California) to keep their accreditation despite very low graduation rates and allegations of fraud and predatory practices.

This decision—which is being appealed by ACICS—is important because without accreditation, colleges cannot receive federal Pell Grants and student loans. ACICS-accredited schools across the country received $4.76 billion in federal student aid in 2015. Even though these schools have 18 months to gain accreditation through other agencies, some fear they will not meet the deadline since gaining accreditation is a lengthy process. Without accreditation, colleges may be forced to shut down, which could affect up to 600,000 students nationwide.

How might this decision affect students in California? The most recent enrollment data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education indicates that campus closures would not have a major effect on overall student enrollment. (This data is from 2014, so to get closer to what for-profit enrollment looks like today, I subtracted enrollment at colleges that have closed since then: Brooks, Everest, Heald, International Academy of Design and Technology, ITT Tech, Sage, TransWestern Truck Driving School, Westwood, and Wyotech.) In California, ACICS oversaw 53 campuses, including Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts and Kaplan College (which was recently acquired by Brightwood College). In total, 26,478 students attended ACICS colleges; this number represents 11.1% of for-profit college enrollment and only 1.1% of California’s total postsecondary student population.

However, the 26,500 students who could be displaced by campus closures may face difficult decisions. These students have several options: they could transfer to another college, apply to have their loans forgiven by the federal government, or apply to the state student tuition recovery fund for reimbursement. But none of these options are perfect. Community colleges that accept for-profit students may not accept all of their credits. Enrolling in another for-profit carries the risk that it will close, too. Students who apply for federal loan relief may experience long waiting periods, and there is uncertainty about whether this relief will continue. At the state level, the student tuition fund may not refund all of a student’s debt.

It is possible that the Trump administration will loosen for-profit regulations, which may forestall additional campus closures. But given the uncertain future of this sector, along with low graduation rates and high levels of student debt at many for-profit colleges, students may want to find alternative programs in the public and private not-for-profit sectors.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Californians Favor Higher Taxes over Higher Tuition

After six years without tuition increases, California’s public universities are considering proposals to modestly raise tuition for California residents. The University of California (UC) has proposed increasing systemwide tuition and fees for undergraduates by $336 to a total of $12,630 for the academic year. The California State University (CSU) has proposed increasing in-state student undergraduate tuition by $270 to a total of $5,742 for full-time students. Campuses at each system charge additional fees, which currently average about $1,200 at UC and $1,400 at CSU.

A recent PPIC Statewide Survey on Californians and higher education indicates that these proposals are likely to be unpopular with the public. The survey found that Californians are concerned about the cost of college: 57% said that the overall affordability of California’s public colleges and universities is a big problem. Only 23% of Californians would be willing to increase student fees in order to increase funding for California’s public higher education system.

This is not the first time Californians have voiced disapproval of tuition increases. Before UC and CSU raised tuition in 2011, PPIC’s 2010 higher education survey found that only 35% of Californians favored increasing student fees as a way to maintain higher education funding levels in the face of state budget cuts. In 2011, our survey found that 65% of Californians were very concerned about increasing student tuition and fees as a way to deal with decreased funding.

Today, when many policy preferences are often divided along party lines, there is partisan consensus on this issue: at least 70% of Californians across parties say they would be unwilling to increase student fees to fund higher education. Indeed, less than a third of Californians across all regions and demographic groups say they would be willing to increase student fees.

At the same time, a majority of Californians (67%) believe that the current level of state funding for public colleges and universities is inadequate. So what are Californians willing to do to increase funding for public higher education? Overall, they are twice as likely to say they are willing to pay higher taxes as to say they are willing to increase student fees (48% to 23%). However, and perhaps unsurprisingly, we see notable partisan differences when it comes to willingness to pay higher taxes. While 68% of Democrats say they would be willing to pay higher taxes to increase funding for public colleges and universities, only 20% of Republicans say the same.

Another way to increase funding for California’s public colleges and universities would be to admit more out-of-state students, who pay higher tuition. Californians are somewhat divided on this issue, with half saying they would not be willing to admit more out-of-state students, while 46% say they would be willing to do so. However, only 21% of Californians support admitting more out-of-state students if this would mean admitting fewer in-state students. This view holds across party lines: only one in four Republicans (25%), and even fewer independents (21%) and Democrats (16%), are willing to admit more out-of-state students if this would mean admitting fewer in-state students. UC has proposed increasing systemwide out-of-state tuition and fees by over $1,600 to almost $40,000.

Our survey findings suggest that the proposed UC and CSU tuition and fee increases may be unpopular among Californians of all political persuasions—and that Californians’ reluctance to increase the financial burden on the state’s students may be driven by concerns about access and affordability.

Learn more

Read the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Governor’s Funding Plan for Climate, Drought

Governor Brown has released a proposed budget that reaffirms the state’s commitment to boosting drought resiliency and battling climate change. While specifics are likely to change before the budget is finalized in June, here is a summary of key proposals.

Cap and trade. California’s recent efforts to combat climate change have been funded from its cap-and-trade program. The program faces an uncertain future because its statutory authority is set to expire in 2020. Partly due to this uncertainty, 2016 cap-and-trade auctions raised a fraction of the money raised in previous years. At the governor’s budget press conference, he announced legislation that would extend the program beyond 2020. Appropriation of cap-and-trade funds in the new budget is dependent on the passage of this bill—which will require a two-thirds vote in both the senate and the assembly. Should it pass, the governor proposes appropriating $2.2 billion for cap and trade, a decrease from last year’s $3.1 billion. As in past years, 60 percent of the proceeds would be for ongoing funding of public transit, affordable housing, sustainable communities, and high-speed rail. The rest is split among one-time investments. This year, the largest sum in the one-time investment pot ($863 million) is for public transit improvements aimed at increasing ridership and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Smaller sums include $142 million to fund local climate actions in the state’s most disadvantaged communities and $128 million for projects in forests and urban and agricultural landscapes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in vegetation or soils.
Emergency drought spending. While recent rains have drenched California, the governor’s emergency drought declaration is still in effect, and the new budget appropriates an additional $188 million in one-time resources for drought relief. Roughly half ($91 million) is allocated to CAL FIRE—the agency dedicated to fire protection and stewardship of the state’s forests—to enhance its firefighting capacities and support the removal of dead trees. The drought has contributed to widespread tree mortality, which has raised concerns that the dead trees might fuel future destructive wildfires.
Water bond updates. Nearly 80 percent of Proposition 1 water bond funding has already been appropriated (though far less has been awarded for spending). This year, the governor proposes appropriating $248 million from the bond for an Integrated Regional Water Management grant program. These funds are meant to incentivize regional cooperation with the goal of resolving complex water management challenges at a broad scale while balancing social, environmental, and economic objectives. For instance, these funds could foster a regional approach to helping water systems adapt to climate change. An additional $3.8 million would enable the State Water Resources Control Board to enforce the implementation of California’s groundwater law.

Although state money represent only a fraction of California’s total water sector spending (13%—the rest is mostly locally funded), it is an important piece of the funding pie. While the governor’s proposed budget would bring welcome funding to a number of critically important areas, key water challenges continue to experience long-term funding gaps—especially safe water for small rural communities, flood control systems, stormwater management, and ecosystem management.

Learn more

Read California’s Water: Paying for Water (from California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

College Costs Could Rise for Some Students

The governor’s budget proposal includes increased funding for UC and CSU but likely not enough to keep the systems from raising tuition—which the governor said he expects. The proposed tuition increases (about 5% at CSU and 3% at UC) are modest compared to the large increases from 2006 to 2011 (104% at CSU and 92% at UC). PPIC has shown that while financial aid increases protect most students from low income families from tuition hikes, students from middle- and upper-class families see their costs increase.

The governor’s proposed budget also phases out the Middle Class Scholarship program. Created by the legislature in 2013—after CSU and UC costs climbed rapidly—this program aimed to help students from families too wealthy to receive Cal Grants (state grants that cover tuition for low-income students). The scholarships cover 10% to 40% of tuition (depending on family income and assets) for eligible students from families with incomes up to $156,000. About 37,000 students benefitted from the scholarship this year.

How much do middle-class students pay?
To characterize what a student pays to attend college, we often use the term “net price”—a comprehensive accounting of student costs and assistance. To determine the net price, we add books, room and board, and other expenses to tuition, and subtract federal, state, institutional, and local grants and scholarships (money that a student doesn’t have to pay back).

Students who receive some form of federal financial aid (grants, loans, work study, etc.) generally pay much less than the full cost of college. For students from families making less than $80,000, federal, state and local grants usually cover at least the full tuition at both CSU and UC—but these students pay a net price that could be as high as $11,000 a year at CSU and $13,000 at UC in order to cover expenses other than tuition. Students from families making $75,000 to $110,000 are generally too wealthy for federal and state grants; they pay a much higher average net price of about $16,000 at CSU and $21,000 at UC. (Also, many students pay close to the full cost because they do not apply for and/or are ineligible for federal aid.)

The most recent cost data is from 2013‒14—this was the first year of the Middle Class Scholarship program. Average awards that year were $1,100 or less, and once the program was fully implemented awards were slated to range from $1,300 and $5,400 at UC and $700 and $2,700 at CSU, depending on the income and assets of eligible students and on the number of applicants.

Not surprisingly, the phasing out of the Middle Class Scholarship and the impending tuition increase are expected to have a disproportionate impact on middle- and upper-class students. As a result, those students will probably pay more for their degrees.

Learn more

Read “Higher Education in California: Student Costs”
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center