Population – Page 3 – Public Policy Institute of California

COVID-19 and California’s Census Count

The COVID-19 crisis has upended the carefully laid plans for the 2020 Census in ways that might have disproportionate effects on California’s count. The Census Bureau is making important adjustments, but California needs to be particularly vigilant about the potential consequences.

The Bureau began its self-response period on March 12, when it started mailing out invitations to participate in the census to virtually every household in the country. Self-response remains the safest and simplest way to gather census data because, unlike in-person interviews, it does not raise the risk of coronavirus exposure.

The virus has altered almost every other effort the Bureau had planned. The Bureau always does extensive follow-up with households that fail to self-respond. More people are likely to need follow-up in California than in the average state, so problems with that process will be felt more acutely here. Follow-up is generally in person, which raises risks that didn’t exist just a few weeks ago; at least one census worker has even tested positive for the virus. To accommodate some of these challenges, the Bureau has delayed hiring and pushed back both the start of the follow-up (from May 13 to May 28) and the cutoff date for completed self-response forms (from July 31 to August 14).

The Bureau’s plans for counting those in less conventional living arrangements have been upended as well. The original plan for group quarters such as college dorms and senior living facilities was to send out a census worker to collect information for the entire facility from a contact person. College students are supposed to be counted as if at school, but many have been sent away from their campuses. And senior facilities are protecting their highly vulnerable residents by strictly limiting access. The Bureau is exploring alternative approaches.

People who are homeless, particularly those living on the street or in cars, are especially difficult to count. Estimates suggest that homelessness is a bigger and faster-growing problem in California than in almost any other state. The Bureau had planned to count homeless people wherever they happened to be from March 30 to April 1. But the homeless population is especially vulnerable to the virus, and sending census workers out to count in person would put the workers and their communities at risk. The Bureau has delayed this effort by a month to lower the risk of contagion.

Finally, the Bureau does a wide range of communications work just to get the message out that the census is happening and is important. The Bureau’s carefully developed media campaign is likely to be overwhelmed by news about the pandemic. Moreover, a significant amount of outreach was to be conducted in physical spaces by trusted messengers in each community. All of that will need to be rethought. Not only are large gatherings generally banned, but most community spaces are closed.

Though there is some scheduling flexibility, a hard deadline looms. By law, the Bureau must submit total state populations to the president by December 31 so that congressional representation can be adjusted to reflect changes in population over the previous 10 years. This is the most basic constitutional function of the census. Changing that deadline would require congressional approval and could complicate the process of redrawing the lines of representational districts.

These challenges are significant, but a strong performance during the self-response period will mitigate them. PPIC will be monitoring and providing key analysis of the self-response process to help ensure that the state is in the best possible position before the follow-up period begins.

COVID-19 and California’s Vulnerable Populations

To take a closer look at access to care, PPIC has created an interactive, California Critical Care during COVID-19.

To reduce community spread of COVID-19, California has instituted statewide guidance to shelter in place until further notice, and to practice social distancing when leaving home for approved activities such as grocery shopping or exercise. Because COVID-19 is novel, no vaccine is available and no one has preexisting immunity. However, individuals are not equally at risk, and there are several known sources of vulnerability.

There are Californians at elevated risk of exposure to the coronavirus. For some, this risk is due to the nature of their work, as is the case for physicians, nurses, and other front-line medical staff. For others, such as California’s approximately 115,000 prisoners and 150,000 homeless individuals, living conditions pose serious challenges to social distancing. And being over 60 or having an underlying health condition makes over one-third of California’s adults especially vulnerable to serious or fatal complications—this estimate does not include undiagnosed medical conditions, which puts the actual figure higher.

Californians in the state’s 21 rural counties may have lower exposure to the coronavirus because of the relative ease of social distancing. These individuals, who make up over 837,000 residents, may face significant challenges if they do contract the coronavirus. California’s rural adults are more likely to smoke than urban ones (16.8% versus 11.0%) (California Health Interview Survey 2018), and smoking is suspected to put coronavirus patients at higher risk of complications because it is known to damage lung health.

Rural residents often have to travel farther to access critical care resources. This is especially concerning for the large numbers of elderly Californians who are low income, geographically isolated, or living alone in the state’s rural areas (California Department of Aging 2019).

Communicating to California’s Seniors about Coronavirus

Older adults are especially vulnerable to the coronavirus (COVID-19). Early data show that mortality rates among people age 60 or older are many times higher than among younger adults. Protecting this population is paramount to limiting the health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. In California, this means communicating information in ways that can effectively reach a particularly diverse older population.

California’s senior population is large and growing fast. In 2018 the number of older adults in California reached 8.0 million, up from 5.7 million ten years earlier, according to the American Community Survey. Today, one in five Californians is age 60 or over, a record high.

The rapid growth in the older population is not unique to California. Throughout the nation—as in most developed countries of the world—populations are aging rapidly. The aging of the very large baby boom cohort, declining birth rates, and increasing life expectancy have expanded the senior population.

What sets California apart is its diversity. People of color make up almost half (45%) of California’s 60 and over population, about double the share of the rest of the nation (23%). In California, Latino and Asian American populations make up relatively high shares.

California’s older population is also diverse in terms of language: 37% of older Californians speak a language other than English at home, compared to 13% in the rest of the nation. While Spanish predominates among non-English speaking households, dozens of languages have at least 10,000 speakers. Among the 2.9 million Californians who do not speak English at home, 1.2 million are not proficient in English (speaking only some or no English).

The vast majority of older adults live in the state’s large metropolitan areas—Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, along with the Bay Area. But in some lightly populated rural counties, they make up one-third or more of the population. These counties, in the far northern part of the state (Modoc, Trinity, and Siskiyou) and in the Sierra Nevada (Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Mariposa, Nevada, Plumas, Sierra, and Tuolumne), could face acute local health care challenges.

It is essential that health services and public health messaging in California consider the state’s diverse population of older adults. Culturally and linguistically appropriate public health announcements, news, and services will help ensure that all Californians in all regions of the state have up-to-date information on the novel coronavirus and steps they can take to protect themselves and lessen its spread.

Will Students without Home Internet Fall Behind During Coronavirus Shutdowns?

K–12 schools across California are preparing for closures due to the coronavirus outbreak, to protect students from unnecessary exposure and to sanitize facilities. As schools consider moving classes online to mitigate the disruption to student learning, broadband access at home presents a formidable challenge.

The good news is that K–12 schools have the means to deliver classes online. PPIC research has found that the overwhelming majority (90%) of California schools met the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) minimum threshold for digital learning in 2018, and 59% of schools met the FCC’s long-term targets.

However, internet access is a bigger problem for students in their homes. In 2017, close to 1 million (15.6%) school-aged children (ages 6–17) had no internet connection at home, while over 1.6 million (27.5%) did not have broadband access. About 9.5 percent of households with school-aged children reach the internet only via a cellular data plan, which can be slower and more expensive. For these same households, the devices available are limited as well, with 12.7 percent reporting no laptop, desktop, tablet, or other portable wireless computer at home.

Underrepresented students are most at risk of falling further behind during school closures. About a third of Latino or African American students and students whose parents do not have a college degree lack a broadband subscription at home. Nearly half of low-income households with school-aged children have no broadband at home. Affordability remains a key barrier, as half of low-income households did not subscribe to broadband because of the cost.

In rural areas, access may depend on whether an area offers services. Forty-one percent of rural households with school-aged children do not subscribe to broadband at home, which is much higher than the state average (25%). For households with no internet access, 33.2 percent indicated internet was not available where they lived compared to 1.3 percent of respondents in metropolitan areas.

Households may not have internet or broadband for many reasons, including financial, technological, and topographical barriers.

As the state and local authorities consider alternatives to in-person instruction, policymakers will need to consider how internet access will affect all students in the days and weeks ahead.

California’s Population Slowdown

The decennial census is fast approaching. Starting this Thursday, March 12, most households in the country will be sent an invitation to fill out a census form online. Over the next several months, the US Census Bureau will prod those who have not responded to make sure they are counted. The count will have important implications for political representation, federal funding, and a wide range of research.

Thanks to yearly estimates from both the Census Bureau and our state’s Department of Finance, we already know a lot about how the state population has changed, even before the census count begins. The latest numbers suggest a marked slowdown since the early 2010s. The California Department of Finance estimates annual growth of just 0.35% in 2018 and 2019, down from nearly 1% from 2010 through 2012.

California is now a net loser in overall migration—that is, migration to and from both other states and other countries—for the first time since the Great Recession. The state has long experienced net losses in domestic migration—it has had net gains in only 3 of the past 30 years—but the losses have risen from 116,000 in 2017 to 198,000 in 2019.

International migration used to make up for domestic losses, but it has also slumped in recent years. The California Department of Finance estimates that net immigration from other countries has dropped from a gain of 217,000 in 2017 to a gain of 181,000 in 2019. The US Census Bureau reports an even bigger drop in international migration, enough for a total population estimate that is 447,000 people smaller than the one from the Department of Finance.

California’s population is also getting older, and the state’s young adults are having fewer children. Natural increase—the difference between births and deaths—has been falling since the early 1990s. It remained above 280,000 each year from 1991 to 2010, but since 2015 it has fallen from 247,000 to just 181,000. This decline mostly comes from a downward trend in births. In 2019, California had 11.3 births for every 1,000 residents, its lowest rate in well over a century.

Natural increase is essential to understanding California’s future. Net migration may rebound, as it has in the past. But the state’s birth and death trends indicate that California’s population will grow slowly for years to come.

Interactive: Many Californians Live in or Near Poverty

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]More than 7 million Californians are “near poor”: out of poverty, but within 1.5 times the poverty line, according to the California Poverty Measure. The near-poor population is slightly larger than the poor population, and many could be pushed into poverty by small expenses.

In California, a near-poor family of four who rents has annual resources that range between $32,500 and $48,800. Adults with less education and fewer work hours, renters, African Americans, and Latinos often have the highest poverty and near-poverty rates. Disparities that persist across poor and near-poor groups are reminders that the poverty threshold is not a hard line where economic hardship ends.

Among adults, full-time work does not remove the risk of poverty: 21% of people ages 25–64 working full-time, full-year jobs are in or near poverty. These full-time workers are more likely to live in near poverty (13.9%) than in poverty (7.1%). At the same time, adults in less than full-time jobs live in near poverty at about the same rate (19.7%) as those with no work (20.9%). But they are less likely to live in poverty (22.3%) than those with no work (32%).[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row max_width=”80″ visibility=”visible-desktop”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p9yd5nm9kxnddf7zryd5dqnp1b3xnwkjnq?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row max_width=”80″ visibility=”visible-tablet-landscape”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p9yd5nm9kxnddf7zryd5dqnp1b3xnwkjnq?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-tablet-portrait”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p9yd5nm9kxnddf7zryd5dqnp1b3xnwkjnq?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row visibility=”visible-phone”][vc_column][vc_column_text]

[infogram id=”1p9yd5nm9kxnddf7zryd5dqnp1b3xnwkjnq?live”]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Resources from social safety net programs play a substantial role in moving people out of poverty—2.7 million more Californians would be poor if not for the social safety net. However, many of those moved out of poverty nonetheless live in near poverty, as broader factors like the cost of housing and available jobs play key roles in the resources they have on hand.

As California policymakers address poverty through tax credits, safety net programs, and housing policies, near-poverty rates provide another view into the state’s lowest-income populations. Reducing poverty in California will require attention to how families can be lifted out of poverty and also positioned for long-term economic security.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Californians Are Grappling with Homelessness

In his State of the State address last week, Gavin Newsom focused almost exclusively on homelessness—a significant long-term problem and major concern for state residents. In 2019, 150,000 Californians—more than a quarter of the US homeless population—were counted as homeless. California’s rate of homelessness rose to 38 per 10,000 residents, the third highest in the nation.

What is more, 72% of California’s homeless residents are unsheltered, living on the street or in parks and other makeshift spaces. And nearly three in ten self-report as chronically homeless—having been on the streets for more than a year.

Californians across the state are feeling the gravity of this issue. The latest PPIC Statewide Survey finds that more than 8 in 10 Californians see homelessness as a problem in their part of the state (86% adults, 89% likely voters).

Considering these numbers, it does not come as surprise that Governor Newsom has made homelessness a major focus. Citing the connection between chronic homelessness, mental health, and behavioral health, Newsom has underlined the importance of policies and investments that allow for “whole person” care. By linking current funding sources and asking lawmakers to expand the use of funds for services provided to the homeless population—especially those involved with the criminal justice system and at-risk foster youth—the governor hopes to improve and integrate these services.

The PPIC Statewide Survey finds that a full 70% of Californians—and 64% of likely voters—favor the governor’s proposed $1 billion budget expenditure to address homelessness. State leadership and investment are key, but there is only so much that can be done at the statewide level. Finding solutions to homelessness requires coordination between the federal, state, and local levels, as well as collaboration across sectors—including housing, health, and social services.

Testimony: California Is on Track to Close the Degree Gap

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Hans Johnson, director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified February 25, 2020, before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee (No. 2) on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty. Here are his prepared remarks.

At the PPIC Higher Education Policy Center, we have long been concerned about the future of California’s workforce. Would the state have enough college graduates to meet evolving economic demands? We have produced a series of reports addressing the dynamics of this issue.

Five years ago, we projected a shortage of highly educated workers in California. Specifically, our economic projections to 2030 showed that about two in five jobs would require at least a bachelor’s degree, while demographic projections suggested that only about one in three Californians would attain this level of education. This shortfall amounts to 1.1 million bachelor’s degrees.

PPIC noted that to fill this shortfall, the state and its higher education systems would need to act—increasing access, transfer, and completion especially among groups historically underrepresented in higher education, including low-income students, first-generation college students, Latinos, and African Americans.

We identified ambitious targets that—if met—would close the degree gap. Those targets included large increases in access to the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), both for first-time freshmen and for transfer students. They also included substantial increases in graduation rates. At the request of the legislature, UC and CSU both issued reports on how they might meet those targets.

Today, I’m pleased to say that California is currently on track to close the gap. The concerted efforts of policymakers, higher education officials—including staff and faculty—and, of course, students have led to these early gains.

State General Fund allocations for each system have increased substantially since the Great Recession, allowing for increased enrollment and renewed efforts to improve student persistence and completion. Both UC and CSU have exceeded PPIC’s closing-the-gap targets. These early gains have reduced the degree gap by almost 80,000.

Two primary actions have led to these gains.

First, increases in state funding have allowed UC and CSU to enroll substantially more first-time students from California—both freshmen and transfer students. At UC, enrollment of transfer students went up 16% between fall 2010 and fall 2019. Enrollment of freshmen grew 14%. At CSU, enrollment increased 41% for transfer students and 33% among freshmen over the same time period. Notably, UC’s gains occurred primarily in one year, from 2015 to 2016, when the legislature and governor tied a $25 million allocation to increasing enrollment by 5,000 students. In that single year, total first-time enrollment of freshmen and transfer students went up 10%, with gains concentrated among African Americans (36%) and Latinos (25%).

Second, programs to improve student persistence and graduation rates have also paid off—and contributed to enrollment growth. These gains have been especially sharp at CSU, which has received substantial funding from the state to support its graduation initiative. At CSU, six-year graduation rates for California-residency students have increased from 57% for 2009 entering freshmen to 67% for the 2013 cohort. At UC, four-year graduation rates for California-residency students have increased from 62% for 2010 entering freshmen to 68% for the 2014 cohort. (Six-year graduation rates at UC remain very high, around 85%). Graduation rates for transfer students have also increased at both systems.

These early successes are very promising. Still, California needs to build on them if it is to close the degree gap fully. The demand for college remains high. PPIC’s statewide surveys show that the vast majority of parents (79%) want their child to earn at least a bachelor’s degree. College preparation among high school graduates has increased, with the share of students completing the college preparatory requirements of UC and CSU now at an all-time high. And while applications to UC and CSU have levelled off or even declined a bit recently, application levels are still near record highs. All but one UC campus and many CSU campuses already do not have room to admit all eligible applicants.

Looking ahead, strong demand for UC and CSU is likely to continue as college preparation improves and the transfer pathway becomes more efficient and effective. New initiatives, including reforms in remedial education at the community colleges and CSU, have the potential to substantially improve student success rates and boost transfer. New articulation agreements, such as the Associate Degree for Transfer, have streamlined the pathway from community colleges to four-year colleges, especially CSU. (PPIC will be issuing a report on transfer trends later this year.) And an increased focus on improving student outcomes has led to multiple substantive reforms designed to increase persistence and completion at UC and CSU.

Finding ways to accommodate all eligible students is a pressing challenge, but one that must be met in order to ensure a better future for all Californians. Through thoughtful planning—and yes, additional funding—closing the degree gap is possible. Improving access and completion is a necessary and critical component to ensuring that more low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students enjoy the benefits of a college degree. The early progress I’ve highlighted here has led to greater access and success for underrepresented students, creating momentum to improve the wellbeing of all Californians.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Medi-Cal Expansion for Undocumented Seniors

Under the proposed expansion of Medi-Cal to undocumented seniors, vulnerable Californians would gain comprehensive health insurance. The policy improves access to care for individual seniors and could alleviate the financial burden on counties that serve undocumented immigrants in indigent care programs, increasing resources for other low-income groups.

The senior population in California is projected to increase by over 2 million in the next decade, dramatically outpacing growth of younger groups in a demographic shift known as the Silver Tsunami. This increase, in particular among those in older age groups (75 to 84), will test California’s health care delivery and financing systems, because seniors are more likely to be disabled and to have complex or multiple health conditions than younger groups.

While most California seniors have health insurance—with Medicare being the most common—not all seniors have coverage. Many uninsured seniors are likely to be undocumented, making them ineligible for Medicare or to purchase coverage through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace. These same seniors may have limited finances and therefore also are likely to struggle to access and afford health care.

Currently, most uninsured, undocumented seniors rely on safety net providers and a limited form of Medi-Cal that covers only emergencies, along with indigent care programs in certain counties that choose to cover undocumented immigrants. Under the expansion, these seniors would gain access to full-scope Medi-Cal, connecting them to preventive care and to programs to improve their disease management. Some expansion funds would also apply to the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program, which pays for a caregiver—often a relative—to provide support for a senior to continue living at home rather than entering a costly long-term care facility.

The budget estimates state costs of $320 million for the expansion, which would benefit 27,000 individuals. If enacted, the policy could have implications for local finances. Counties in California provide health care and mental health services to the medically indigent, with some areas—most notably Los Angeles—serving undocumented immigrants. These county programs, together with community clinics and emergency rooms, are essential access points to health care for undocumented, uninsured seniors. If undocumented seniors become eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal, the state would finance their care instead of the county, where applicable. This shift could free up funding that could then be invested in other health-related county responsibilities, such as disaster preparedness, prevention activities, and substance use disorder treatment.

A complicated fiscal relationship between the state and counties, however, makes it difficult to estimate how much funding could be redirected if this group of seniors gain access to Medi-Cal. As state lawmakers consider the policy change, it will be important to consider how it may affect local and state finances.