Arabella Cureton – Page 15 – Public Policy Institute of California

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.

Groundbreaking Dam Removal Moves Forward on the Klamath

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

The Klamath River has seen its native fish populations plunge and its water quality decline, in part because of four hydropower dams built in its middle reach a century ago. In the coming years, these dams will be removed, creating the largest dam removal and river restoration project in the country. We talked to Lester Snow—board president of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation (KRCC) and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center Advisory Council—about this effort.

PPIC: What is the status of the process to remove the dams?

Lester Snow: Right now we’re working through permitting. This process literally requires every environmental permit you can think of. More permits are required to tear these dams down than are needed to build the proposed Sites Reservoir, for example. This effort requires NEPA (National Environmental Protection Act) and CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) compliance, permits under the Clean Water Act, endangered species protections, and approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

KRRC has hired a range of consultants and contractors to plan, design, and remove the dams and restore habitat. We’re still a couple of years away from major construction. Right now it looks like construction will start in 2021, and the dams will literally be empty in early 2022.

PPIC: How might dam removal improve the health of the ecosystem and native fisheries?

LS: Two basic improvements will come from this project. First, it opens up about 400 miles of historic salmon habitat that was cut off by the dams. The dams alter natural flows and block salmon spawning habitat. And second, it will improve water quality in the lower basin. The reservoirs get toxic algal blooms in the summer―you can’t swim in them or eat fish caught in them.

There will also be ecosystem and cultural benefits from the dam removal. Salmon runs all along the west coast have been under assault for 50 years, and many are in dire shape. So this ecosystem restoration is an important step for Pacific salmon populations. And salmon are a traditional and essential part of life for local tribes—including the Hoopa, Yurok, and Karuk. These tribes have had many of their cultural resources taken from them, and we have an obligation to make amends for the damage that’s been done to their communities.

PPIC: What are some tradeoffs in this effort, and how are they being dealt with?

LS: One issue that is personal for people in Siskiyou County is they’ve had the use of these reservoirs all their lives. Some families will lose lakefront property when the lake is gone. And that raises concerns about how dam removal could affect the local economy. Also, draining the lake might affect some groundwater wells.

We’ve put a lot of time into listening to local communities’ concerns and working out how to address these kinds of issues. We expect a healthier river will result in improved commercial and recreational fishing and increased regional tourism, which can offset potential impacts.

PPIC: What are some key lessons learned from this process that could inform future river restoration efforts?

LS: That’s a good question, and there isn’t an easy answer. The magnitude of this project makes it really complex and unique. No one’s ever taken down four dams at once. By removing all four at once, the sediment behind the dams can be flushed out in one go, to minimize impacts on the fishery. Scientifically, we’re going to learn a lot from this project, and it will be important to document what we learn as we go.

A key lesson is you have to listen to the people who will be directly impacted―even if they don’t trust you or are against the project, you have to engage with them. And you have to have some accommodation for their concerns.

This project is also an incredible illustration of the need for coordination between state and federal permitting authorities. The Klamath is an environmental project where everyone could save time and money if we could figure out how to streamline the permitting process. We still need to figure out how to coordinate permitting without rolling over someone’s authority or losing key protections.

Maybe the biggest lesson on this project is that failure is not an option. It’s been talked about and committed to for decades, and now is the time to get it done. We know there will be unexpected roadblocks along the way, but these dams are coming down—no question about it.

Salmon photo credit: Mid-Klamath Watershed Council

The Citizen’s Redistricting Commission: Open for Business

Today marks the first day of the open application period for California’s next Citizens Redistricting Commission (CRC). The CRC is the state institution vested with the authority to redraw district lines for the state legislature, board of equalization, and Congress. This process occurs after every decennial census to reflect population shifts. The commission’s 14 members will use the new 2020 census data, along with testimony from the public, to draw new districts by August 2021.

If this sounds like the operation of a typical government agency, it is anything but. The CRC is a bold departure from the status quo that was first used in the last redistricting process, in 2011. Most observers felt it worked well the first time around. Today, the state embarks on a second attempt that hinges on a key question: can it work again?

In the past, authority to draw district lines resided with the state legislature. Legislators are of course chosen by the general public in normal elections, where many different issues are always at stake. They are politically connected by definition. When legislators were responsible for drawing the lines, they were not required to (nor did they) hold many public hearings about the redistricting process. Their decisions were subject to few constraints and did not need to be justified or even explained.

The CRC now follows a very different process. The commissioners are chosen through a public application process run by the nonpartisan state auditor. The potential applicant pool is incredibly broad: any registered voter who has been continuously registered with the same political party for five years and has voted in two of the last three statewide elections can apply. (There are a few conflict of interest provisions but they don’t apply to many people.) All the commission’s proceedings must be conducted in public. The lines it draws are subject to a long list of constraints, and the commission is required to produce a report explaining and justifying its decisions.

These rules and constraints may sound good on paper, but the success of the CRC ultimately rests on the quality of the people who serve on it. That requires a deep applicant pool, and the state was fortunate to get one the first time around. The auditor initially received almost 25,000 qualified applications, of which almost 5,000 were willing to fill out a far more detailed follow-up application.

Numbers this large might seem like overkill for a 14-member commission. But a surplus was helpful because the first applicants were not representative of the state as a whole. One of every two initial applicants was a non-Hispanic white male, well out of proportion with their share of the state’s population. Northern California was also overrepresented relative to Southern California, with Sacramento itself producing double the applicants that would be expected from chance alone.

However, with such a large pool to work with, the auditor was able to select a group of final candidates who looked much more like the state as a whole. The final commission was well balanced ethnically, geographically, and politically. Even more than that, the commissioners had a mix of experience and professional backgrounds. The members included a principal, a chiropractor, and a bookstore owner; they also included two civil rights attorneys, several people with experience in city planning, and a former director of the US Census.

The CRC helped to launch a redistricting reform movement that is now sweeping the country. Four states recently adopted commissions, and the first bill out of the US House this year included a commission reform modeled on the California experience. Many eyes are watching to see if the CRC can work a second time.

Needless to say, success the first time does not guarantee success again. The auditor will need a lot of applicants to create a diverse commission fully representative of the state. Anyone who supports the CRC’s mission and meets the basic requirements should consider throwing their hat into the ring.

The open application period closes on August 19.

2020 Census: Counting California’s Homeless Population

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

Accurately counting the homeless population is notoriously difficult. People experiencing homelessness can be hard to find—they tend to move around a lot, and at any given time, they might be in a shelter, in a car, outdoors, or couch surfing with family and friends. They may also conceal their living arrangements for privacy reasons or to avoid law enforcement.

The issue is particularly urgent for California as the 2020 Census approaches. California has the most homeless individuals of any state, with 130,000 people living in shelters or outdoors, according to estimates from January 2018. Since this count doesn’t include people staying temporarily with family or friends, it’s almost certainly an underestimate.

Undercounting homeless Californians could affect political representation and lead to reduced federal funding for low-income and homeless families, especially in urban areas with large homeless populations. In addition to determining congressional seats, the census is used to allocate billions of federal dollars for health care, education, and housing programs, including Section 8 housing vouchers for low-income families.

The goal of the census is to count all residents “in the right place,” meaning where they usually live and sleep. People who are couch surfing without a permanent place to live should be included in the household where they’re staying on Census Day (April 1, 2020).

What about people staying in shelters, living outdoors, and residing in other temporary locations? The census bureau has two approaches:

Census workers will interview and record responses from people experiencing homelessness at service-based locations or outdoors. These sites include emergency and transitional shelters, soup kitchens, mobile food vans, and targeted outdoor locations (e.g., under bridges, in parking lots, in encampments). This effort will take place from March 30 to April 1, 2020. Census workers in 2010 counted nearly 28,000 Californians in homeless shelters and about 64,000 Californians at other service-based locations and outdoors.
Census workers will go to “transitory” locations to collect responses from people who don’t have a usual home elsewhere. These locations include RV parks, motels, campgrounds, racetracks, circuses, carnivals, and marinas. This effort will take place from April 9 to May 4, 2020. Census workers in 2010 collected data from nearly 24,000 transitory locations in California.

The Census Bureau works with local partners to identify service-based and outdoor locations. Input on the latter is particularly important, as California has high shares of homeless individuals who are not living in shelters. The bureau’s new construction program allows governments to submit addresses for new shelters and transitory locations that are expected to be completed by April 1, 2020.

Getting input from local officials and on-the-ground organizations will be critical. They likely have the most up-to-date information about service-based and outdoor locations in their communities, as well as on those who have been displaced due to fire or other disasters. Individuals with experience working directly with the homeless population may also consider applying to be census workers—speaking with a trusted person from the community can help encourage participation among those who might otherwise distrust government officials.

Together, these efforts could go a long way toward motivating homeless individuals to participate in the census, while also ensuring that census workers have accurate information about where to count these Californians.