Category: Fiscal & Governance Reform

Testimony: Building Trust in State Government

Today California’s Little Hoover Commission held its first public hearing on the nature and quality of interactions between state government and the public. The commission invited Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, to testify about the public’s trust in government. Here are his remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your important and timely discussion about improving the delivery of public services and better engaging Californians with their state government. I have been asked in my testimony to set the stage for your work by helping you to better understand current public sentiment toward state government.

Last year, voter turnout in California reached a historic low: 30.9 percent of eligible adults in the November general election and 18.4 percent in the June primary. Millions of Californians who could register to vote did not, and millions of Californians who could vote opted out. These numbers clearly point to a California public that is disconnected from their state government today.

This is consistent with what we have observed in the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) Statewide Survey since we began monitoring Californians’ attitudes toward government in the late 1990s. We have been asking questions about government trust focused on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency at the local, state, and federal levels. And we have found that Californians’ distrust in state government predates the low voter turnouts of the 2014 election.

My purpose is to provide information on the magnitude of public distrust in state government today, the differences among demographic groups, and how current levels of distrust compare with the past. I will also contrast opinions about government at the local, state, and federal levels. Lastly, I will talk about the implications of our findings for state government leaders.

The source of most of my comments about trust in state government today is the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Future report from December 2014, which I coauthored with PPIC colleagues Dean Bonner, Renatta DeFever, Lunna Lopes, and Jui Shrestha. Our latest findings on trust in state government are based on interviews with 1,704 adult residents throughout California from November 10 to November 17, conducted in English or Spanish and by landline or cell phone with a sampling error of ± 3.7 percent.

We asked our tracking question on government effectiveness, “How much of the time do you think you can trust the state government in Sacramento to do what is right?”—and only one in three Californians said just about always (7%) or most of the time (25%). Two in three Californians said that you can trust the state government to do what is right only some of the time (61%), or volunteered that they trust it none of the time (5%). These perceptions are shared across regional and demographic groups. Republican and independent voters express more distrust in state government than Democratic voters do. In our polling a decade ago, the results for this question were similar. However, perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (3% always, 15% most of the time, 67% most, 12% none).

Responding to our tracking question on government responsiveness, 67 percent of California adults said “the state government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” while only 28 percent said that “it is run for the benefit of all of the people.” Majorities across regional and demographic groups perceive the state government as pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, and Republican and independent voters are more likely to express this negative view than Democratic voters are. Again, the results were similar a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (75% big interests, 17% all of the people).

In our tracking question on government efficiency, 54 percent of adults said they “think the people in state government waste a lot of the money that we pay in taxes,” 35 percent said “people in state government waste some of it,” and 8 percent said they “don’t waste very much of it.” Majorities across most regional and demographic groups hold the perception that the people in state government waste a lot of money, while Republican (78%) and independent voters (60%) hold this view much more often than Democratic voters (46%) do. Once again, the results were similar in our polling a decade ago, while perceptions have improved somewhat since October 2010 (66% a lot, 26% some, 6% don’t waste very much).

We asked the same three questions on effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency about the federal government in our May 2014 poll and about local government in our May 2011 poll. State government fares only slightly better than the federal government in ratings of trust. Local government fares the best of all levels. Californians are much less likely to say their local governments “waste a lot of the money paid in taxes” or are “pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves.” They are slightly less likely to say that they can trust their local governments “to do what is right only some of the time or none of the time.”

In summary, the negative perceptions about the effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency of state government are consistent over time and widely held in the public today. What are the implications of our findings for state government leaders? First, Californians will continue to value the citizens’ initiative process as they seek to have a say in the major decisions made by their state government. Second, many Californians will be skeptical about the need for higher state taxes and more state revenues, given their level of distrust in their state government. Third, proposals to move authority and control to the local level will resonate with Californians, given their higher levels of distrust in state government. Last but not least, civic disengagement will continue to be a problem. We may reach new lows in voter participation given the level of distrust in government.

I’d like to close on a more hopeful note. This commission’s work comes at a time when we are seeing some improvements in all three indicators of trust in state government. In the wake of a growing economy and better fiscal situation, the approval ratings of the governor and state legislature are also on the rise, as our survey results show. The voters have also approved a series of major legislative and fiscal reforms in recent elections. In our polling, the public is signaling their early support for local control of school funding and state-local corrections realignment.

It will take time to see whether these reforms and changes satisfy a distrustful public. I’m optimistic that we are poised to make gains in trust in state government over the next few years, and this is an area where California could lead the nation. New efforts toward building trust in state government will pay dividends in the form of citizen engagement. They are important for the future of all Californians.

Managing Drought: Conference Videos

After a day of discussions about the drought, PPIC senior research fellow Ellen Hanak, was asked to sum up.

“This drought, as challenging as it was—as it still is—has really provided the opportunity for folks from different agencies that have different management objectives to work together to make the most out of the little water that we’ve had available.”

“It was not as bad as it could have been,” she said. “And I think that that is going to continue.”

The keynote speakers and panelists at PPIC’s Managing Drought conference this week emphasized that there is much to do to make California more drought resilient. Climatologist Mike Anderson’s description of the state’s future made the challenges clear. Panelists throughout the day discussed the difficult tradeoffs California has yet to make in managing urban and agricultural scarcity, conserving ecosystems, and allocating water.

But the discussions also highlighted a path forward. Keynote speaker Jane Doolan described lessons California can learn from Australia’s experience with its millennium drought. Our legislator panelists pointed out that California has begun to make reforms in water management that—with diligent oversight—the state can build on.

We invite you to watch the videos of the Managing Drought conference. We hope you find the discussions constructive and useful.

Legislators Talk Next Steps on Water Policy

Four key legislators yesterday discussed their water policy priorities for the current session, agreeing that their top one is overseeing the implementation of Proposition 1, the state water bond passed in November. At a Sacramento gathering sponsored by PPIC and focused on managing drought, the four also agreed that the bond is just a down payment in addressing a long list of water policy challenges.

Assemblymember Anthony Rendon, who represents parts of southeastern Los Angeles County, noted that the water bond’s lack of earmarks, or “pork,” helped secure the voters’ approval—and will require strong legislative oversight to make sure the money is well spent.

Echoing the theme of legislative oversight, Assemblymember Marc Levine, who represents parts of Marin and Sonoma Counties, said it is important to review past investments—such as Proposition 1E, passed in 2006 to fund flood control projects—to make sure that money is spent strategically and builds voters’ trust in government.

Asked about other policy priorities, Senator Lois Wolk, who represents much of the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, mentioned water infrastructure. It is wearing out, expensive to replace, and the federal government is no longer financing it. That makes funding a challenge for the state.

How can the state build drought resilience? Senator Jean Fuller, who represents parts of Kern, Tulare, and San Bernardino Counties, said ensuring a predictable water supply is critical.

“People do not know—especially the farmer—when they’re going to get their water, if they’re going to get it in August, if they’re going to get it in July, how much it’s going to cost at that point.”

By building more certainty in the system, water markets can be managed for the benefit of all, she said.

Hundreds of people attended the PPIC event Managing Drought, and hundreds more watched the online webcast. PPIC will post videos of the full event soon.

California–State of Change

As leaders from government, business, and philanthropy gathered last week to discuss California’s future, we were reminded once again that these are exciting times in our state. The discussions were part of PPIC’s full-day conference, California—State of Change, and they highlighted both the advantages our state enjoys and the major challenges ahead.

Speakers noted that the recovering state economy, newly elected state leaders, a richly diverse population, and a history of innovation provide much to build on—as well as a lot of building to do. For example, California has recently enacted sweeping changes in corrections and education finance. But, as the governor’s chief aide, Nancy McFadden, emphasized in her keynote address, most of the hard work of implementing these policies lies ahead.

Among other challenges noted in the subsequent panel discussions: a state tax structure that leads to extreme revenue volatility, a need for public employee pension reform, an uneven economic recovery that has left many Californians behind, government institutions that do not provide the tools for managing in the 21st century, and an electorate that is disengaged from the political process.

But, as other speakers reminded us, Californians are living in a time of reform. A change in term limits may lead to more stability in the legislature and result in more long-term policymaking. Recent initiatives to shift many school decisions from the state to the district level and to move state corrections responsibilities to the counties could make local governments labs for innovation—but only if we have the will and the data to evaluate the results.

Our final panel demonstrated that California still knows how to dream big. The discussion focused on three projects: a historic effort to combat climate change, the construction of high-speed rail, and the advancement of stem cell research. All have been controversial, but they show that California voters and elected officials embrace innovation, as they have throughout the state’s history. 

We invite you to watch the videos of each session. We hope you find the conversations as thought-provoking as we did.

California Politics and the Future

Jim Brulte, chair of the California Republican Party, says Governor Brown is “clearly the master of Sacramento.”

Jennifer Medina, national correspondent for the New York Times, says the governor hasn’t talked much about poverty or income inequality— an issue his Republican opponent used in the election this year.

And Garry South, longtime Democratic strategist, says the governor needs to take on the tough issue of fiscal reform because this can only be done by a Democrat.

These are a sample of comments from a panel of experts speaking at a briefing hosted by PPIC in Sacramento this week. The discussion focused on the challenges and opportunities ahead for the governor and legislature. The event began with a presentation of the results of the new PPIC Statewide Survey by Dean Bonner, associate survey director. The survey included a wide range of topics, including tax reform, health care, climate change, and the approval ratings of state leaders.

 

California’s Future Challenges and Opportunities

PPIC hosted a day-long series of conversations this week about creating a better future for our state and highlighting the choices we need to make today to do so. After a keynote address by Nancy McFadden from the governor’s office, panelists from government, business, and philanthropy discussed California’s challenges and opportunities before a large audience in Sacramento and online. They tackled difficult topics, such as improving economic opportunity and increasing citizen engagement in government. And they discussed ways the state can build on its strengths—an improving economy, a diverse population, and a history of reform and innovation.

We will post videos of all of the sessions soon. In the meantime, we want to share the opening remarks prepared by PPIC researchers. They set the context each session:

We hope their insights will pique your interest and inspire you to watch the conference videos when they become available.

Timely Talk About California’s Future

Californians are feeling more optimistic about the state’s immediate economic future than they have in years, our December PPIC Statewide Survey shows. Today, 52 percent expect California to have good times financially for the next year. The last time more than half of residents expressed this view was in January 2001. But when Californians are asked to take the longer view, worries about their own economic futures emerge. Most residents—55 percent—think that when California’s children grow up they will be worse off financially than their parents.

The time is right to both build on Californians’ new optimism and address the nagging concerns about the future. After years of economic turmoil, the state has entered a period of reform and reinvention. How can we Californians ensure that the changes will bring about a better future for the state?

With the new legislature sworn in and state leaders developing policy agendas for the months ahead, PPIC is hosting a wide-ranging conversation tomorrow about the choices we need to make today to create a future that benefits all Californians. Registration for the conference, California—State of Change, is closed, but I invite you to watch the live webcast of this full-day event.

Event panels will cover a variety of topics, including the economic, political, and demographic trends driving change in the state; how leaders can best respond to them; and how government can be a partner in the kind of innovation that has made our state a leader in so many areas.

Please join us for a series of timely discussions about our future.

Will Proposition 47 Save Money?

Earlier this month California voters passed Proposition 47, which classifies a number of drug and property offenses as misdemeanors instead of felonies or “wobblers” (wobblers may be charged as misdemeanors or felonies at the discretion of the prosecutor). Moreover, the new law—which went into effect November 5—permits offenders to file for resentencing, meaning that those who are resentenced could be released from jail or prison.

Based on limited data, the Legislative Analyst Office estimates that roughly 40,000 offenders per year will be affected by Proposition 47 and that total county and state savings associated with the reform may be in the “high hundreds of millions of dollars annually.” The bulk of the state savings will be aimed at reducing re-offending by providing funding for mental health and substance abuse treatment.

A clear short-term benefit of this reform is that it is likely to help the state meet the federally mandated reductions in the prison population by February 2016. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation estimates that around 4,700 inmates are eligible to petition for release from prison under Proposition 47.

The greatest impact, however, might be at the county jails. Because of the 2011 corrections realignment reform, most of the lower-level offenders now covered under Proposition 47 are serving their sentences in county jail instead of state prison. Recent reports that focused on the proposition’s expected jail savings, using the LAO’s estimate of 40,000 affected offenders per year, put the local savings from the proposition somewhere between $400 and $700 million.

While substantial savings may very well occur from housing fewer inmates affected by Proposition 47 in county jails, a closer look suggests expectations may be too optimistic.

First, the data used to generate the LAO estimate of the number of affected offenders also show that about 30 percent of the convictions in 2012 did not result in jail time, but rather in a straight probation term. The largest share of convictions, about 41 percent, led to a jail term followed by probation. Only 11 percent of convictions resulted in a straight jail sentence. In other words, even though the data suggest that the estimated number of affected offenders is 40,000 annually, the potential number of convictions directly affecting the jail population would be roughly half that number.

Second, the estimated local savings from Proposition 47 are based on the assumption that newly freed jail beds will remain empty. Given that jail overcrowding in California compelled the early release of 71,000 sentenced offenders for the period between April 2013 and March 2014, this assumption may not hold. A likely response to the newly freed jail beds will be to refill them with inmates, who absent the proposition, would have been released early due to overcrowding. While using freed beds to reduce early releases may limit savings, it may also bring a new degree of integrity to sentencing and alleviate the public safety concerns associated with these early releases.

In the end, the Proposition 47 budget savings may fall short of projections—but the proposition may well bring other benefits, including fewer releases due to overcrowding. Furthermore, the passage of Proposition 47 means that offenders convicted of these lower-level offenses—who otherwise have a clean record—will be spared the stigma of a felony record. In this way, the proposition may ultimately lead to less re-offending because those charged under its new sentencing standards will have greater access to jobs and housing than they would if they had become convicted felons.

Paying for Higher Education

As concerns have grown about access to and affordability of California’s higher education system, understanding costs has become more critical than ever. How are institutions—and students—faring?

This question is the focus of three reports released by PPIC and a panel discussion held last week in Sacramento. Hans Johnson, a Bren fellow at PPIC, first summarized the research. One report shows that federal financial aid has shielded low-income students from rising tuition at the University of California and California State University. A second report evaluates both revenues and spending—including faculty salaries and benefits— and concludes that UC and CSU have not become less efficient in the past several years. A third report suggests that as California begins to reinvest in public higher education, it could tie funding more closely to results—for example, the number of degrees awarded—to meet state goals. In his presentation, Johnson noted that the state’s current goals—the Master Plan for Higher Education—are more than 50 years old and overdue for an update.

Panelists took up the issue of goals—how to set them, what to measure, and how to share the costs—in a discussion moderated by Patrick Murphy, PPIC research director. Participants were Henry Brady, dean of UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy; Nancy Shulock, former executive director of CSU Sacramento’s Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy; and Amy Supinger, California policy consultant for the Lumina Foundation.

New Era for Initiatives?

California’s exceptional nature was on display again last Tuesday, as Democratic candidates swept the statewide races while Republicans scored big victories in the national midterm elections. An analysis by my PPIC colleagues Eric McGhee and Daniel Krimm shows that the state’s legislative races were closer this time around and a few competitive seats switched parties. In the end, though, the California Legislature and U.S. House delegation remain firmly in the Democratic column.

The exit polls confirmed what we reported in 2014 PPIC pre-election surveys and analyses of likely voters’ profiles. The 15 point voter registration gap between Democrats and Republicans (43% to 28%) narrowed somewhat in this midterm election but not by enough to challenge the deep-blue nature of California politics. The final voter tally is still weeks away, but this election year will likely stand out in California history for record-low turnouts in both the June primary and the November general election.

The search for the cause of voter apathy has mainly focused on the governor’s race, but I would like to call attention to another exceptional feature of this election: the drop-off in state propositions and citizens’ initiatives, which have often captured media attention and voter interest in the past. It may mark the beginning of a trend with profound implications for voter engagement and state policymaking.

This year, there were only eight state propositions on the June and the November ballots, including four legislative measures, three citizens’ initiatives, and one referenda. Both legislative measures on the June ballot, Propositions 41 and 42, passed with more than 60 percent of the vote and little fanfare. On the November ballot, two legislative measures, Propositions 1 and 2, also garnered more than 60 percent of the vote. Governor Brown sold them as a package with a “Save Water, Save Money” campaign, tapping into concerns about the state drought and budget shortfalls. Proposition 47, a citizens’ initiative on criminal sentencing, passed with almost 60 percent at a time when fear of crime does not loom large among Californians. The three measures that failed—two citizens’ initiatives on health care, Propositions 45 and 46, and a referendum on Indian gaming, Proposition 48—faced well-funded opponents. Although money was clearly a factor in the outcomes on ballot measures, the $151 million in total spending represents a down year for the campaign consultants in the California initiative business.

To place this year in context, there were 100 state propositions on state ballots between 2003 and 2013, including 68 citizens’ initiatives, 25 legislative measures, 6 referenda, and the governor’s recall. Total spending for and against the 68 citizens’ initiatives was about $1.8 billion. In fact, since the Proposition 13 era began in 1978, the numbers of state propositions and citizens’ initiatives in midterm and presidential election years has never been lower than in the 2014 election cycle. Why the dramatic change in voter decision making at the ballot box?

One contributing factor is SB 202, which had the intended consequence of keeping citizens’ initiatives off the June primary ballot for the first time in decades. Passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in late 2011, this law limits citizens’ initiatives and referenda to the November election, when more voters typically cast ballots. A PPIC report pointed to another potential effect of the law: turnout could fall by 3 to 7 points without initiatives on the primary ballot. While the legislature can still place its proposals on the primary ballot, as it did with Propositions 41 and 42 this June, these measures can lack the sizzle and drama of initiative campaigns. In other words, SB 202 could have the unintended consequence of lower primary turnout.

SB 202 was expected to result in more initiatives on the November ballot, but that did not happen this year. It is possible that some interest groups shied away from the ballot because their causes were more likely to succeed in a primary with a smaller, older, and more conservative electorate. Others may have decided to wait until the presidential election in November 2016 because their causes are better aligned with a larger, younger, and more liberal electorate. Or maybe initiatives have simply become too expensive, even for the interest groups that operate in this arena. In any case, fewer initiative campaigns gave Californians fewer reasons—and fewer televised reminders—to vote this fall.

Because of another new law, SB 1253, we can expect further declines in the number of initiatives on state ballots. Passed by the legislature and signed by the governor this fall, the law offers proponents more opportunities to amend and withdraw their measures, and it requires the legislature to hold public hearings to review initiatives. These types of process changes have strong public support in PPIC Statewide Surveys. By allowing time for reconsideration and providing opportunities for collaboration between initiative proponents and the legislature, SB 1253 may result in fewer citizens’ initiatives and more legislative measures—which would be a throwback to the pre- term limits era before 1990. Such a trend might improve the initiative process, but it could also make elections less interesting for voters.

An early test of SB 1253 will be the marijuana legalization initiative that is on course for the November 2016 ballot. A previous marijuana legalization initiative failed with a 46 percent yes vote in 2010. The October 2014 PPIC Statewide Survey found that 50 percent of likely voters are in favor of legalizing marijuana, so it is far from certain that a 2016 initiative would pass.

Will legislators and proponents search for a compromise before the initiative goes to the voters? Legislators may want to find ways to connect with younger voters in 2016, while proponents may want to bypass costly and risky campaigns. Another reason to think there may be a compromise: the pass rate for legislative measures (71%) has been much higher than the pass rate for citizens’ initiatives (38%) over the past 40 years. If a deal is struck on this high-profile, controversial issue, initiative compromise leading to legislative measures could become the new hybrid model for making policy at the ballot box.

How will voters respond to primaries and general elections with fewer citizens’ initiatives on the ballot? It seems likely that presidential elections will still hold their interest, but primaries and midterm elections might be less compelling. In other words, tinkering with the citizens’ initiative process may unintentionally produce new historic lows in voter turnout. Looking for other tools to engage Californians in elections while improving the initiative process will keep secretary of state–elect Alex Padilla busy over the next four years.