Economy – Page 4 – Public Policy Institute of California

Strengthening Career Pathways in California’s Community Colleges

California lawmakers have made large state investments—totaling more than $1 billion over the past five years—to support and expand career education. As the primary provider of career training in the state, California’s community college system was the recipient of much investment in this area, and their creation of the Strong Workforce program has established an ongoing source of funding to continue this work.

To assist policymakers, practitioners, and students to better understand how career education programs can meet regional workforce needs and connect students to well-paying, in-demand jobs, PPIC has engaged in a multi-year research agenda focused on community college career education pathways. We highlight our work in this area in a recent article, Strengthening Career Pathways in California’s Community Colleges, in Techniques magazine, a national publication that provides career education faculty and practitioners with timely analysis and insights to inform the delivery of high quality career education programs.

The article highlights recent research from PPIC’s Higher Education Center on the structure of career education pathways and their value to the students who complete them. Since many career education students are older than typical college-age students—and are likely to have work or family obligations (or both)—the article also highlights how various reforms being enacted by the community colleges could help students complete career training pathways, with a focus on the new online-only college, CalBright, that began enrolling students for the first time in October 2019.

Video: Poverty and Opportunity in California

Although California has seen strong job growth in recent years, poverty remains persistently high. In many inland regions, the prevalence of unemployment or low-wage work is a key driver of economic hardship, while elsewhere—especially in coastal areas—the high cost of housing and other necessities plays a major part.

At an event in Sacramento last week, PPIC researcher Tess Thorman discussed the latest findings from the PPIC-Stanford California Poverty Measure (CPM), and a panel of experts discussed the role that policymakers, community organizations, and other stakeholders can play in reducing poverty and broadening economic opportunity.

Poverty has declined—slowly—in California, Thorman said. Also, while nearly 7 million people in California (17.8%) are in poverty, a roughly equal number are living just above the CPM poverty threshold. Certain groups are more likely to be living in poverty, such as young children, Latinos, and families without any college graduates.

Panelists discussed the key role that housing stability plays in achieving financial security. Richard Raya, director of Mission Promise Neighborhood in San Francisco, said his organization connects families with a range of supports, including below-market rental housing. He explained how the city has partnered with local foundations to create “an ‘accelerator fund’ that allows affordable housing developers to identify existing apartment buildings that are rent-controlled” and purchase them in order to keep them affordable – an approach Raya says could be a model for other communities.

Kimberley Johnson, director of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), underscored how housing and financial stability are fundamental to meeting educational and career goals. Johnson noted that the governor has boosted investments in key elements of the social safety net, such as CalFresh food assistance and the California Earned Income Tax Credit. An important focus for CDSS currently is creating linkages across “a very robust array” of programs and services to make them more accessible to those in need.

California Bridge Academies, launched in Fresno and now active in six counties, offers a voluntary, 18-month program designed to help families exit poverty. According to founder Pete Weber, each household has a “career and family navigator” who assesses needs, skills, and interests. The navigator ensures that “each client is connected to the right on-ramps” so that parents as well as their children receive all necessary services and supports.

The panel highlighted the importance of coordinating services with an eye toward improving family well-being. Caroline Danielson, PPIC policy director and senior fellow, discussed the importance of creating linkages “across different kinds of programs” because “it can be a fragmented safety net.” Danielson pointed out that California has made progress in this effort, while also noting that further efforts to “connect these dots” for children could make a substantial difference in poverty.

Video: Californians and Their Government

As California’s 2020 Democratic presidential primary draws closer, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders lead the rest of the field by a wide margin. However, many voters say they would consider supporting a candidate other than their current choice. These and other key findings from PPIC’s latest statewide survey were outlined by Rachel Lawler in Sacramento last Thursday.

Likely voters identifying as registered Democrats or as Democratic-leaning independents support Elizabeth Warren (23%), Joe Biden (22%), and Bernie Sanders (21%) at levels well above Kamala Harris (8%) and Pete Buttigieg (6%). No other candidate is preferred by more than 3 percent, and 9 percent say they don’t know which candidate they prefer. More than half of voters who expressed a preference would consider supporting another candidate.

The survey asked about a $15 billion bond for school and college construction that has been approved by the legislature for the March 2020 ballot. It has the support of two in three adults—but only 54 percent of likely voters. This narrow margin of support coincides with concern about the state’s economic outlook. Fewer than half (41% adults, 37% likely voters) expect good times financially in California during the next 12 months.

A potential November 2020 ballot measure that would amend Proposition 13 to tax commercial properties at their current market rate and direct some of the new revenue to K–12 public schools is favored by 57 percent of adults. However, fewer than half (47%) of likely voters favor the measure, and this share is down somewhat from April 2019 (54%). A potential state bond measure to fund water infrastructure is favored by 68 percent of adults and 57 percent of likely voters.

Other survey highlights:

Californians are most likely to name homelessness (15% adults, 16% likely voters) and jobs and the economy (15% adults, 13% likely voters) as the top issue facing the state. Other issues named include housing costs, immigration, and the environment.
Most Californians view immigrants as a benefit to the state, and half are at least somewhat worried about someone they know being deported as a result of increased federal immigration enforcement.
Two in three Californians think the Supreme Court should not overturn Roe v. Wade; more than half think some states are making it too difficult to get an abortion.
Half of Californians say they have a disaster plan and six in ten have a disaster supplies kit. Six in ten are very (28%) or somewhat (32%) worried about personal injury, property damage, or a major disruption of their routine as the result of a disaster.

The Mood of California Voters and the 2020 Election Cycle

This post is excerpted from my speech at the Sacramento Seminar on October 4, 2019 in San Francisco.

Pollsters often say that a public opinion survey is a snapshot in time. The latest PPIC Statewide Survey was conducted in the days after the California Legislature finished its work in 2019 and while startling news was breaking that the president called a foreign leader for a political favor—which has resulted in the launch of an impeachment inquiry. The mood of California voters in this timely survey—especially their level of unhappiness and anxiety—is noteworthy because of its far-reaching implications for the March primary and the November election.

Let’s start with President Trump’s approval rating, which now stands at 35% among California likely voters. This is unchanged from the last reading in our July survey and has been remarkably stable over time. Today, 83% of Republicans approve of his job performance, compared to just 38% of independents and only 7% of Democrats. Given its partisan makeup, California is a reliably blue state on the Electoral College map. Still, low approval ratings for the president will increase turnout, influence the Democratic presidential primary choice, and affect all of the legislative races next year.

Meanwhile, approval ratings for Congress remain low even in the wake of Democratic control of the US House of Representatives. Today, just 24% of California likely voters approve of the way that Congress is doing its job. This is unchanged from the start of the year—as well as from a year ago when Republicans controlled the House. In California, likely voters across party lines give low approval ratings to Congress. If this trend continues, incumbents will have to work harder to keep their seats in 2020.

Closer to home, Governor Newsom and the legislature are getting mixed reviews in their first year of making policy together. Among likely voters, 43% approve and 44% disapprove of the governor, while 38% approve and 51% disapprove of the legislature. Since the beginning of the year, disapproval has increased significantly for the governor (+15 points) and the legislature (+8 points). Today, more than six in ten Democrats approve of the job that the governor and legislature are doing, compared to fewer than four in ten independents, and less than two in ten Republicans. If their ratings remain in the doldrums, the governor and legislators will have little sway over Californians’ ballot choices next year.

Equally important, California’s likely voters are in a negative frame of mind about the state of their state—even in the midst of low unemployment and budget surpluses. Fifty-four percent say that things in California are going in the wrong direction (41% say right direction). When asked about economic conditions in California for the next 12 months, a similar 54% expect bad times (37% say good times). Pluralities across party lines are now expecting bad economic times in the next 12 months—a timeframe that includes most of the 2020 election campaign season.

State bonds and tax measures will face headwinds if this level of economic unease continues. This is already evident in the modest support for the $15 billion school bond (54%) and the split-roll property tax initiative (47%) in our recent survey.

Digging deeper into the survey, more than six in 10 likely voters worry about being able to afford the cost of their health care, six in ten are concerned about the threat of a mass shooting where they live, half are worried about experiencing natural disasters such as wildfires, and four in ten worry about someone they know being deported. Candidates’ promises and plans to address these fears will likely impact the standing of current frontrunners Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren—and their challengers—in a Democratic presidential primary which is very much up for grabs, as our recent survey shows.

How will voters’ views change over the next 12 months? Clearly, the political wildcard is the impeachment inquiry and how it will impact perceptions of the president, Congress, and the major parties. Uncertainty about the economy is another unknown factor. In the short run, the impeachment inquiry is likely to increase polarization, lead to more political gridlock in Washington, and heighten expectations for the governor and legislature to do more to solve the problems facing California.

PPIC Statewide Surveys will continue to monitor the broader political and economic attitudes, as well as voters’ preferences for presidential candidates and ballot measures, throughout what will be a consequential 2020 election.

How Community College Reforms Could Help English Learners

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Due in large part to their mission of access and affordability, community colleges play a key role in educating immigrant students, especially those who are English Learners. In 2016–17, more than 58,000 first-time community college students in California enrolled in English as a Second Language (ESL) courses.

For many students, taking ESL courses may be linked to the desire to improve their socioeconomic prospects. Indeed, community college students who earn a credential or transfer to get a four-year degree are well positioned to climb the economic ladder. In an economy that increasingly demands skilled workers, there is tremendous untapped potential in increasing the educational attainment—and economic trajectories—of ESL students.

California’s community colleges have undertaken several reforms that aim to improve student success and close equity gaps. These reforms—spurred by AB 705 and the new Guided Pathways framework—present a ripe opportunity to help more ESL students get on the path to completing college composition, a requirement to earn a college credential or transfer.

These initiatives are primarily focused on addressing the needs of students who intend to pursue a degree or transfer. However, our most recent research finds that about two-thirds of ESL students (66%) are not on track to do so—and may consequently be left out of the reforms. (We consider students on track if they take any ESL course required to access college composition and at least one course other than ESL or English.)

ESL students who are not on track are more likely to come from historically underrepresented groups. For instance, we find that compared to students taking ESL courses needed for college composition, those not taking these courses are more likely to be older and Latino. They are also more likely to have unknown citizenship status (a possible signal of being undocumented) and to have not graduated high school.

As colleges across the state reform their ESL sequences and programs of study, it will be critical to ensure that all students have the opportunity to earn a degree or transfer. The two-thirds of ESL students currently not on track to do so are the most vulnerable. These students have already taken the major step of enrolling in college. To improve their likelihood of advancing, colleges could provide clearer and more effective ESL sequences and degree and transfer pathways, as well as stronger student supports, including advising, placement, and information about available degrees and certificates.

Some colleges are already working on these issues. Initiatives like the Guided Pathways ESL Milestone certificates at Cypress College—the result of AB 705 and Guided Pathways efforts—present a unique example of how colleges can structure ESL programs and certificates to help English Learners get on a pathway toward a college credential.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that there are some ESL students who take ESL coursework for reasons unrelated to a degree. As colleges redesign their ESL programs, working alongside non-credit ESL programs, adult education schools, and community-based ESL programs could help ensure that colleges are keeping the diverse needs of ESL students in mind.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Video: Career Education and Economic Mobility in California

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Career education, also known as vocational education or career technical education (CTE), prepares a wide range of Californians for employment and economic advancement. Community colleges are a major provider of career education in California, offering short- and long-term certificates along with associate degrees across a variety of fields of study.

In this video, senior research associate Shannon McConville discusses the importance of career education for California and what new PPIC research says about its economic benefits. Career education credentials can provide substantial earnings gains and also helps create a strong California workforce over the long term.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”hidden-phone”][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/5qmlPVWwiEw” el_width=”70″ align=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-phone”][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/5qmlPVWwiEw”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Predicting California’s Economic Health

After a record expansion, recent signs suggest the nation’s economy may be softening. Unusual patterns in the bond market, signs of slower growth overseas, and the uncertainty of the ongoing trade conflict with China have all raised fears that a downturn may be on the horizon. Yet it is still unclear whether the country is actually headed for a recession. Moreover, all these signs focus on the United States as a whole (or even the whole world). It would be helpful to have more signs for the California economy in particular.

The PPIC Statewide Survey can offer one such sign. The survey has amassed an enormous amount of data on Californians’ views of the economy. For more than 20 years, it has asked survey participants whether they think California will have good or bad economic times in the next 12 months. This question was adapted from the University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment and has been asked of everyone: rich and poor, politically engaged and disaffected, citizen and non-citizen.

Given the broad scope of the survey, in the aggregate these respondents may be good at predicting the direction of the economy. They see what everyone else sees on the news, but they can also report on their own private circumstances and those of close friends and relatives. This might pick up on information that has not yet emerged in official statistics. Indeed, when we look at survey responses alongside recent recessions, an interesting pattern emerges.

The figure below shows the share of survey respondents who have predicted good economic times for California, and plots it against the state’s per capita income and the periods officially labeled recessions. PPIC respondents appear to have anticipated the last two downturns. The share expecting a good economy plunged a few months in advance of each recession and a slide in state incomes. The drop happened a couple months before the 2001 recession, but as much as nine months before the Great Recession.

What do the numbers tell us today? The last few surveys have seen a slight drop in the share expecting good times, but the shift hasn’t yet matched the magnitude seen before the last two recessions. At this point the trend is ambiguous, but well worth watching. It can supplement other California-specific information such as the State Fiscal Health Index from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, but a few months earlier. A sharp and sustained drop in Californians’ optimism about the economy may signal dark storm clouds on the horizon.

Integrating California’s Education Data

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]California needs an integrated data system that connects pieces of the education pipeline that are currently maintained separately. An integrated system could perform a variety of critical functions and reach a diverse audience of stakeholders. For example, it could provide feedback to educational institutions on student outcomes, even after students graduate. It could also encourage better planning and coordination between educational sectors, increase the state’s ability to evaluate educational programs and policies, and provide students and families with better information about successful educational and workforce pathways.

The state has recently invested $10 million toward planning for this type of system, establishing the California Cradle to Career Data Systems Working Group to “recommend data system structural components, processes, and options” and to “advise ongoing efforts to develop, administer, and enhance the data system” (per Senate Bill 75).

The Public Policy Institute of California has also been focused on this issue, facilitating a group of research and policy organizations interested in the establishment of an integrated student data system in the state. Known as the California Education Data Collaborative, this group has met regularly throughout this year to discuss the opportunities and challenges associated with advancing education through connected data.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text]

The collaborative’s activities are designed to build knowledge and skills among diverse stakeholders involved in improving access, equity, and success across California’s educational systems. As a collaborative, we have engaged with national experts, leaders in successful data systems from other states, policymakers from California, and those with experience in working for an integrated data system in California.

As the state’s California Cradle to Career Data Systems Working Group takes shape, the collaborative is working to:

Engage with stakeholders—including students, parents, educators, and institutions—about how to implement a data system that best serves them.
Connect with policymakers to ensure that the data system answers critical questions about policies and programs to foster student success.
Provide research and advice on how to construct a system that will improve California’s education systems.
Examine issues of privacy and security to ensure confidentiality of student records.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/2″][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1567624867972{padding-top: 20px !important;padding-right: 20px !important;padding-bottom: 20px !important;padding-left: 30px !important;background-color: #384763 !important;border-radius: 4px !important;}”]

PPIC’s California Education Data Collaborative

California Competes
California College Guidance Initiative
California EDGE Coalition
California Policy Lab
Cal-PASS Plus
The Campaign for College Opportunity
Children Now
CORE Districts
Education Insights Center
The Education Trust- West
First 5 LA
Policy Analysis for California Education
Public Advocates
Public Policy Institute of California
Strategic Education Services
The Institute for College Access and Success
WestEd[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Establishing an integrated, longitudinal student data system will take a multifaceted, sustained approach. In the long run, the value of this system will lie in the policy questions that can be asked—and answered with confidence—and the ability of practitioners, students, and families to access information that helps them make informed choices. To assess reforms accurately and comprehensively will require strong partnerships, clear long-term planning, identified goals—and good data.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Video: Understanding Poverty in California

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Despite a booming economy, millions of Californians live in or near poverty. In this video, PPIC research associate Tess Thorman gives an overview of poverty and child poverty in the state, using the latest figures from the California Poverty Measure (CPM).

The CPM is a joint research effort by PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality that provides a comprehensive look at economic well-being in our state. By accounting for cost of living differences across the state as well as earnings and other family resources—including safety net benefits—the CPM offers valuable insights into the ability of Californians to meet basic needs and be financially secure.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”hidden-phone”][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/tPh4xE7QLGo” el_width=”70″ align=”center”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-phone”][vc_column][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/tPh4xE7QLGo”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]To learn more about poverty in California, visit ppic.org/poverty.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

New Housing Permits Decline Statewide

The first half of 2019 saw a substantial decline in the number of new housing units authorized by building permits. This has heightened concern about the state’s housing crisis and cast doubt on whether Governor Newsom’s goal of adding 3.5 million new housing units by 2025 can be met. More importantly, it underlines the need for a deeper understanding of housing markets and what if any action can be taken at state and local levels to move the needle.

New construction has been falling short of demand for many years. Estimates from Beacon Economics put the backlog at about 2.3 million housing units in 2017. In 2018, only 104,000 residential permits were issued—this was well below the pre-recession permitting peak and left the state far below the number of new homes needed.

According to state housing officials, California needs an average of 180,000 new homes every year to make up for current deficits and accommodate future population growth. This number is not unattainable: an average of 200,000 units were permitted each year from 2003 to 2005. However, today the statewide numbers are moving in the wrong direction. In June 2019, residential permits were down 38% compared to June 2018. On an annualized basis, permits were down 16%, totaling about 93,000. Permits for multi-family units decreased even more sharply, by 23%; only 44,400 were issued.

Housing markets and new construction vary widely across the state. In San Mateo, San Diego, Ventura, and Alameda Counties, the number of permits decreased by at least 30%. Meanwhile, in San Francisco and Sonoma Counties permits increased by 66% and 47%, respectively. Part of the increase in Sonoma County is related to the replacement of homes lost during the 2017 wildfire.

This year’s state budget includes $1.75 billion for the construction of new homes, reflecting the fact that Governor Newson has made housing a high priority. A large boost in production will likely also require local land-use and zoning policies change. For example, research has shown that more multi-family housing is needed to address the affordability crisis in the state—but, in many localities, zoning restrictions make it very difficult to increase this type of housing. State-level action in this area has been highly contentious, as it often comes into conflict with local control. For example, Senate Bill 50, which would eliminate some zoning restrictions near major transit lines and job centers, unleashed a great deal of controversy and is now on hold until next year.

Zoning reform is one step toward the goal of increasing housing production, but it is probably not sufficient. Tying financial incentives directly to housing production is a potentially effective state strategy. Moving forward, sustained cooperation among state and local governments and also private developers is critical to addressing California’s housing challenges.