Population – Page 8 – Public Policy Institute of California

Video: Californians and Their Government

As efforts are gearing up in Sacramento to craft a new state budget, a majority of Californians say they approve of Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed spending plan. Californians also express optimism about the general direction of the state. These and other key findings of the latest PPIC Statewide Survey were outlined by Alyssa Dykman at a Sacramento briefing last week.

The governor’s budget proposal, which calls for increased funds for education and health and human services, garners support from 70% of California adults. More than three-quarters approve of two key components of the proposal: 77% favor allocating $1.8 billion to expand pre-kindergarten and early childhood programs and facilities, and 78% support an $832 million funding increase for public colleges and universities.

The survey also asked whether Californians believe the state is going in the right direction. A majority of adults (55%) approve of where California is headed. This contrasts with less than a third (30%) saying things are going in the right direction for the country. In addition, a record-low 25% of Californians say that President Trump and Congress will be able to work together and accomplish a lot this year.

Other survey highlights:

Asked what the most important issue is for the governor and legislature to address in the coming year, more Californians name immigration and illegal immigration (15% adults) than any other issue.
Most Californians (67%) are optimistic that Governor Newsom and the legislature will be able to work together and accomplish a lot in the next year.
A strong majority of California adults (64%) say President Trump and Republicans in Congress were primarily responsible for the recent partial shutdown of the federal government. Only 24% say Democrats in Congress were responsible.
Only about a quarter of Californians (27%) say the situation with illegal immigration across the US-Mexico border is a crisis.

Video: A Conversation with California’s Legislative Leadership

When Toni Atkins, President Pro Tem of the California State Senate, sat down to talk with PPIC president Mark Baldassare last week, she brought along a list of pressing issues. Asked to name the top two issues facing the state, she led off with housing: “The growing crisis around the lack of housing supply for all levels of Californians is one of our most critical issues.” Next came climate change and its effects across California. And then she added a third issue: water sustainability. In reality, she said, “there is always a list of issues and challenges that we are working on in California.”

Despite this long list, Atkins was optimistic about the legislature’s chances of working productively with Governor Newsom. “It’s early, but I would say that what I appreciate and enjoy about Governor Newsom is he really is a policy wonk at heart.” She added that while Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom share many priorities, the two have very different styles. “Jerry Brown proposed a budget and he only wanted a few things,” while Governor Newsom “has thrown everything out there.”

After noting that it will be interesting to see how the legislature approaches this year’s budget process, Atkins highlighted the governor’s focus on homelessness and mental health issues and his commitment to early childhood education—which, she added, has been “a huge driving issue for the legislative women’s caucus.” She expressed particular interest in the governor’s proposal to “take juvenile justice offenders out of CDCR—the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation—and into more of a health/social services arena.”

Shifting from the state budget process to the ongoing drama over the budget—and border wall—at the federal level, Baldassare asked Atkins about the state government’s response to what is happening in Washington, DC. “You know, I’m so glad to be in California,” she replied. Citing the state’s diversity and the policies that foster it, she said that “to have that attacked in many ways at the federal level means all of a sudden you’ve got California really promoting state’s rights, to protect our policies, our values, and things that we hold dear.”

Atkins tended to be optimistic about even the thorniest issues—such as forestry management, building more housing, and water sustainability. Speaking about the cluster of issues related to climate change, she said, “Maybe the result of these catastrophic fires, and floods, and mudslides—maybe that is the way we’re now able to have a conversation we couldn’t have five years ago, before it was a crisis.” But she added that in order to move an agenda forward, “you’ve got to still have all the stakeholders at the table.”

More generally, Atkins stressed the importance of representing all Californians, regardless of party: “I think we have work to do together.”

Video: Academic Progress for English Learners

More than 40 percent of students in California’s public K–12 system speak a language other than English at home. Almost half of these students are considered English Learners (ELs), in need of language and academic support to succeed in school. In middle and high school, ELs face the dual challenge of attaining fluency in English and working toward a high school diploma.

At a lunchtime briefing in Sacramento last week, Laura Hill—a senior research fellow at PPIC—and Megan Hopkins—an assistant professor at UC San Diego—outlined the findings of a new report on two distinct types of EL students: long-term ELs, who have been in US schools for several years without being reclassified as fluent in English, and late-arriving ELs, who first enroll in the district in grade 6 or higher. The authors looked at the impact of a school’s language environment on academic progress and examined trends in English language development (ELD) courses.

The report focused on the state’s two largest school districts, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD). Together, they enroll about 14% of the state’s EL population—and about 4% of the EL population in schools nationwide. As Laura Hill put it, “It’s a big deal to be able to study in these two districts.”

How might the language mix among students at a school be associated with academic outcomes—both for both fluent English speakers and for ELs? The report finds that the academic outcomes of native or initially fluent English speakers was not related to the percentage of EL students at a school. The evidence is mixed on the relationship between the percentage of ELs in a school and the academic performance of ELs.

Megan Hopkins outlined key findings on ELD courses. She noted that in recent years the rate of EL students receiving ELD instruction has declined in Los Angeles and risen somewhat in San Diego. These trends may be influenced by district-level factors; they are important because, in both SDUSD and LAUSD, long-term ELs who do not have ELD instruction experience slower growth on statewide English language arts tests. These findings suggest that efforts should be made to support ongoing ELD and other language supports, but Hopkins noted that ensuring access to core academic content is also important.

More generally, this study underlines the importance of understanding the factors that contribute to the progress and struggles of California’s large EL population—so that schools can help all ELs advance linguistically and academically.

Interactive: A Look at Child Poverty across California

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Governor Newsom’s first budget proposal included notable efforts to address poverty—especially child poverty—by increasing CalWORKs cash assistance grants, expanding assistance to low-income parents pursuing higher education, and further expanding the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC, which he proposed renaming the Working Families Tax Credit).

California has a troublingly high child poverty rate of 21.3%, or about 1.9 million children, according to our latest estimates from the California Poverty Measure (CPM). The CPM is a joint research effort between PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality that, unlike official poverty metrics, takes into account the cost of living and benefits from social safety net programs.

While poverty rates in the state are also high, child poverty rates tend to be even higher, particularly in the most populous counties. For example, in Los Angeles County, 24.3% of all residents—but 27.8% of children—live in poverty. Altogether, 17 counties, 29 congressional districts, 21 senate districts, and 42 assembly districts have child poverty rates of more than about 20%.

State and federal policies play an important role in lowering child poverty. Our estimates indicate that over a third (35.3%) of children would be in poverty, were it not for programs like CalFresh food assistance, the federal and state Earned Income Tax Credits, and CalWORKs cash assistance. PPIC research also shows that new policies could reduce child poverty even further, although effects vary across the state. We will continue to track and analyze poverty and child poverty to provide this critical information to policymakers and stakeholders.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_raw_html]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[/vc_raw_html][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Many of California’s Highly Educated Workers Are Retiring

As California’s population ages, record numbers of people are now going into retirement. Because so many of these recent retirees are highly educated, this trend has important implications for workforce needs in the state. Replacing these highly educated retirees will require large increases in college enrollment and completion among young Californians.

The number of retirees in California has grown dramatically over the past 10 years. Their total numbers grew from 3.8 million in 2008 to 5.2 million in 2018, a 38% increase—far higher than the state’s overall population growth of 8% during this same period. This rapid growth in retirees is a consequence of the aging baby boom, the very large cohort of people born between 1946 and 1964. During that post-war era, new social norms meant that the typical family had three or four children. The leading edge of the baby boom reached age 65 in 2011. Because the tail end of the baby boom is larger than the leading edge (in California, the birth rate peaked in 1957 and the number of births peaked in 1961), the number of retirees will continue to grow strongly for the next decade. The tail end of the baby boom will reach age 65 in 2029.

Children born during the baby boom ended up far better educated than their parents. Policies such as the GI Bill, along with public investments in California’s public higher education system, allowed for relatively inexpensive, widespread access to college. Today, the number of retirees with a bachelor’s or graduate degree is larger than ever. Between 2008 and 2018, this group increased by more than 700,000 and made up a majority of the net increase in the retiree population.

The retirement of so many highly educated workers is unprecedented and poses a tremendous challenge for California. Every year, the number of new retirees with a bachelor’s degree (more than 70,000 per year in the last decade) exceeds the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by the entire University of California system (55,000 in academic year 2017–18). Without producing more college graduates, California could see a shortfall of 1.1 million highly educated workers by 2030.

The good news is that the state and its higher education institutions are making progress by increasing enrollment, graduation rates, and degrees awarded. These advances have been made possible at least partly because of renewed funding from the state. With the additional funding for higher education in the governor’s proposed budget, California’s higher education system will be better positioned to take on the workforce challenges posed by the retirement of the baby boom.

2020 Census: Counting Imperial County

The decennial census plays an essential role in American democracy. Our series of blog posts examines what’s at stake for California and the challenges facing the 2020 Census, including communities that are at risk of being undercounted.

PPIC’s interactive census maps are an important tool for Californians working to ensure an accurate census count. Using estimates from the Census Bureau and the Federal Communications Commission, they highlight hard-to-count communities across the state and pinpoint reasons why certain areas may be hard to reach.

Home to nearly 200,000 people, Imperial County will likely be one of the hardest-to-count counties in California. According to Census Bureau estimates that draw on demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends, 43% of census tracts in the county will be very hard to count—the highest percentage of any county in the state. Households in these very hard-to-count areas—which are concentrated in the western half of the county, around the Salton Sea and El Centro—are the least likely to respond initially to census forms and are therefore at risk of being undercounted.

Some highlights:

Legislative districts representing Imperial County are among the hardest to count in California. Between 33% and 52% of census tracts are considered very hard to count in Congressional District 51 (Vargas), State Senate District 40 (Hueso), and State Assembly District 56 (Garcia). Undercounting residents of these districts could result in political representation shifting away from Imperial County and toward areas with higher population counts, since district lines will be redrawn based on the results of the 2020 Census.
Almost all residents belong to demographic groups that have been historically undercounted. In the past, the census has disproportionately undercounted African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, as well as young children. The large majority of Imperial County’s population is Latino—with higher shares of Latinos in the western half of the county—and the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation is located in the southeast. Altogether, 86% of county residents are African American, Latino, or Native American (compared to 45% statewide). Noncitizens—who may be less likely to respond in 2020 due to the planned addition of a citizenship question and concerns about deportation and privacy—make up 17% of residents in this border county (compared to 14% statewide).
Imperial County has a high share of young children, particularly in its cities and towns. Children under five years old make up 8% of Imperial County residents, compared with 6.5% statewide. Most young children live in the Imperial Valley, along the corridor from the Salton Sea to Calexico, or outside Yuma, Arizona. In the more rural areas to the east and west, less than 3% of county residents are children under five.
Housing conditions could make it difficult to accurately count residents. Compared to the rest of the state, Imperial County has relatively high shares of renters (44%), overcrowded rental units (15%), and mobile homes (8%), all of which can make residents harder to count. Reaching residents at home will require strategies that vary by geography and reflect local understanding of how families make ends meet. In the eastern part of the county, for example, almost 60% of housing units are mobile homes, and about 20% are rentals, while in and around El Centro and Calexico less than 20% of units are mobile homes but more than 60% are rentals.
Much of the county lacks high-speed residential internet access. The Census Bureau plans to collect the majority of responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Imperial County has one of the lowest rates of internet access in the state: with the exception of only one neighborhood in El Centro, fewer than 800 households per thousand in the county have high-speed internet connections. In places with limited residential internet access, census participation may rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. While this concludes our regional series on hard-to-count communities throughout the state, stay tuned for future posts on the decennial census as we near 2020.

2020 Census: Counting Orange and San Diego Counties

More than 6.5 million Californians live in Orange and San Diego Counties. In Orange County, the hardest-to-reach neighborhoods are found in Anaheim, Buena Park, Santa Ana, and Tustin. In San Diego County, the hardest-to-count areas include parts of Oceanside and Escondido in the northwest and, in the southwest, pockets of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista. Altogether, San Diego County has a higher share of these very hard-to-count areas (18% of census tracts) than Orange County (11%), according to Census Bureau estimates that draw on demographic characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, age, citizenship, and housing conditions) and historical trends. Both counties have higher shares of these areas than 60% of counties, statewide. Households in these very hard-to-count areas are the least likely to respond initially to census forms and are therefore at risk of being undercounted.

Some highlights:

Undercounting hard-to-reach areas could affect political representation in the region. Since the 2020 Census will be used to redraw legislative district lines, political representation could shift away from certain neighborhoods if they are undercounted relative to other areas. For example, in Assembly District 80 (Gonzalez Fletcher), which covers southern parts of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista, as well as a stretch of the southern border with Mexico, 52% of households are predicted to not respond initially to the census—compared to 19% in the surrounding districts.
Knowledge of local population trends can help guide effective outreach. Some neighborhoods in the region have higher concentrations of African Americans, Latinos, or Native Americans—populations that have historically been undercounted in the census. Latinos make up the large majority of residents around Anaheim and Santa Ana in Orange County, as well as in parts of the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista in San Diego County. In some of these same neighborhoods, more than a quarter of residents are noncitizens, who may be less likely to respond in 2020 due to the planned addition of a citizenship question. Moreover, in central and eastern parts of San Diego County, working with tribal governments to reach Native Americans will be necessary to count all residents.
Housing conditions may present challenges to an accurate count, particularly in urban areas. Renters and people living in overcrowded conditions or mobile homes can be harder to count accurately. Hard-to-count housing in the region is concentrated in urban parts of Orange County and in urban and eastern San Diego County. For example, in several neighborhoods in Anaheim, Stanton, and Santa Ana in Orange County, more a quarter of rentals are overcrowded. The same is true for many neighborhoods in the southwest corner of San Diego County, which also often have high shares of mobile homes. San Diego County has hard-to-count housing in inland areas as well, including in Bostonia, El Cajon, and several tribal lands.
The region has small pockets of relatively low internet access. The Census Bureau plans to collect most responses online in 2020—a change from previous practice. Though urban areas generally have better internet access than rural areas do, a number of neighborhoods in the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista actually have fewer high-speed residential internet connections than the surrounding suburbs. Central and eastern San Diego County also have relatively low internet connectivity. In these places, it may be harder to collect responses online, and participation will rely more heavily on paper forms, in-person census takers, or internet provided by local institutions.

We hope these maps serve as a starting point to help local, regional, and state leaders think about which activities, resources, and partnerships—including language assistance, awareness raising, and community outreach—might be most effective for accurately counting different parts of California. Stay tuned for future posts that examine hard-to-count communities in other regions of the state.

Video: Californians and Their Government

As Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom prepares for his first term, half of Californians think he should take a different policy direction than Governor Brown. Four in ten approve of Newsom’s plans and priorities—while three in ten don’t yet know enough to have an opinion. These and other key findings of the latest PPIC Statewide Survey were outlined by Dean Bonner at a Sacramento briefing last week.

The survey asked Californians about four major policy areas that were highlighted in the governor’s campaign. Most see universal health coverage and free community college as top priorities, while fewer see universal preschool as a high or very high priority and only one in four prioritize high-speed rail.

The survey also asked how the state should use the projected surplus in the next budget year. A majority of Californians say they would prefer to use the surplus to increase funding for education and health and human services. Far fewer prefer to use it to pay down debt and build up a reserve or to spend on one-time funding for transportation, water, and infrastructure.

When asked to identify the state government’s highest priority in planning for the future, 39% name improving jobs and the economy, 20% say protecting the environment, and 15% say updating water and transportation infrastructure. Improving jobs and the economy is the highest priority across all parties and demographic groups.

Other survey highlights:

Two-thirds of Californians say the state is divided into two economic groups: the “haves” and the “have nots.” Four in ten characterize themselves as haves and 45% say they are have nots.
While more than half of Californians think the state is generally headed in the right direction, only about a third are satisfied with the way things are going in the nation. Half have no confidence that President Trump will make the right decisions for the country’s future.
Only two in ten likely voters approve of Congress; more than half see the shift in control of the US House from the Republicans to the Democrats as a good thing.
Two-thirds of state residents continue to see immigrants as a benefit, and there is still bipartisan support for allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the US legally if certain requirements are met.

What Approval Ratings Say about Jerry Brown’s Legacy

Perhaps Governor Jerry Brown’s most important contribution—rooted in the higher approval ratings for the executive and legislative branches—was to restore public confidence in state government.

That’s my conclusion after we at the Public Policy Institute of California have taken 64 surveys since Brown took office in January 2011 asking the same question: “Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Jerry Brown is handling his job as governor of California?”

For most of the time since 2011, political gridlock stymied Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Congress.

But in California, Brown and the state legislature were solving problems. Survey results show that the public responded. Brown’s latest (and our final) approval rating stands at 51 percent. That’s 10 points higher than his approval rating in our January 2011 survey. Brown’s approval rating surpassed 60 percent twice—after his 2014 reelection and after Trump’s election, when our January 2017 survey had the governor at a 62 percent approval rating. Not surprisingly, Brown’s highest approval ratings today are among Democrats and self-identified liberals, 68 percent and 69 percent, respectively, and is least popular among Republicans at 18 percent and self-identified conservatives at 36 percent.

Notably, his canoe theory of politics—paddle to the left, and then paddle to the right—seems to have worked well. About half of independents and moderates approve of the governor. Brown’s approval rating has never dipped below 47 percent since the voters passed his Proposition 30 tax increase in October 2012. The recent campaign for the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the race for his successor apparently had no effect on Brown’s popularity.

Brown steered through troubled fiscal waters that damaged other political careers. The approval rating for Gray Davis hit 31 percent in the September 2003 PPIC survey as he faced the recall that ended his time in office. His replacement, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had a 25 percent approval rating in the November 2010 PPIC survey, as the state suffered from massive budget deficits and he and the legislature struggled with unpopular spending and tax decisions.

The state legislature had been mired in low approval ratings for years. Perhaps the legislature rode the coattails of Brown’s success—its approval rating increased by 21 points, from 26 percent in the January 2011 PPIC survey to 47 percent in December. California’s fiscal recovery was certainly tied to more positive views of the governor and legislature. The perception that the state budget situation “is a big problem” fell by 25 points, from 68 percent in January 2011 to 43 percent in January 2018. At the same time, during Brown’s time in office, the belief that the state is generally going in the right direction grew by 16 points to 54 percent in December 2018.

Brown and the legislature took the drama out of the annual budget process, passed popular laws on education funding and climate change, responded to crises such as drought and wildfire, and maintained a united front against Trump’s unpopular policies.

Will Brown be be a hard act to follow for Gavin Newsom?

Maintaining fiscal stability and an effective partnership with the state legislature will be the key ingredients. Jerry Brown will be leaving office with Californians in a better state of mind than they were in eight years ago. His tenure offers a successful model for governing the state in the future.

Election Takeaways: Golden State of Mind

With the release of California’s official Statement of the Vote, the state’s final tally is in for the November 2018 election. This midterm election will mostly be remembered for California’s role in changing party control of Congress. But several other statewide results also stand out:

High turnout. A record-setting 19,696,371 Californians—78% of eligible adults—were registered to vote by the deadline for the general election. An increase of 1,892,548 registered voters since the 2014 general election represents the biggest surge in voter registration between midterm elections in the past 20 years, according to California’s Secretary of State. The 12,712,542 voters who cast ballots is an all-time high for a midterm and, at 65% of registered voters and 50% of eligible adults, this is the highest midterm turnout in the past 30 years. These increases follow record low turnout in 2014. Many factors were at work in heightening political engagement this fall, including intense media interest in California congressional races that carried over from the June primary; voter participation that was stoked by disapproval of President Trump and dislike of his immigration, environment, and tax policies; and new state laws that are being implemented to make it easier for Californians to register to vote and cast ballots.

Blue wave. Democratic candidates won every statewide race and gained enough state legislative seats to have well over a two-thirds majority in the state assembly (60 Democrats, 20 Republicans) and state senate (29 Democrats, 11 Republicans). Democrats also increased their grip on the California congressional delegation (46 Democrats, 7 Republicans). What accounts for this one-party dominance? Midterm elections are often described as a referendum on the president, and President Trump’s approval rating was at 39 percent in the October PPIC survey. PPIC surveys also found an “enthusiasm gap” in voting for congressional candidates, which further skewed the partisan turnout in favor of Democrats. But the difficulties facing Republican candidates go beyond this fall’s political headwinds. The November ballot did not even include Republican candidates for US senator, lieutenant governor, or insurance commissioner—no Republicans made it past the top-two June primary for these offices. The Republicans have not won a statewide race since 2006 and, in this time, their share of the electorate has declined by 10 points (34% to 24%) while their ranks have also diminished (5.4 million to 4.7 million), according to the Secretary of State.
Diverse officeholders. Gavin Newsom was elected governor in the only statewide race featuring two white men. California’s other statewide winners were four women, three Latinos, two Asian Americans, one African American, and one openly gay man. Notably, women candidates won all their races while all those who lost—five Republican candidates, the sole No Party Preference candidate, and a nonpartisan candidate—were white men. However, regional diversity was missing, with six successful candidates from the San Francisco Bay Area and three from the Los Angeles region. There were none representing the populous regions of the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, and the South Coast (Orange/San Diego)—or the more sparsely settled central coast and far north.
Words matter. Propositions 1 and 2, placed on the November ballot by the legislature, passed—consistent with the historically high pass rate for legislative ballot measures. However, just three of the eight citizens’ initiatives passed, consistent with the historically low pass rate for these types of initiatives. Among the most notable failures were the Proposition 6 gas tax repeal and the Proposition 10 rent control measure. The September PPIC Survey found that about half of likely voters favored the general idea of both the gas tax repeal (50%) and rent control (52%), but only four in ten said they would vote yes when they were read the ballot titles and labels. The defeat of Proposition 6 (56.8% no) and Proposition 10 (59.4% no) once again demonstrates that the devil is in the details when it comes to voter support for citizens’ initiatives on the ballot.

It’s no coincidence—given what PPIC studies say about the profiles of likely voters and nonvoters—that rising political participation in California means that the Democratic Party is becoming more dominant and that statewide officeholders are more likely to reflect the state’s diversity. And it is important to note that Californians continue to be highly selective about making public policy at the ballot box as more and more voters engage with the citizens’ initiative process. Still, millions of Californians are not registered to vote and don’t cast ballots. These residents tend to identify as “have nots” and are often most in need of government services. For this reason, the PPIC Statewide Survey will continue to provide a voice—for all adults in addition to likely voters—on state and national issues. Tracking policy preferences across the broadest swath of Californians is especially critical today, as newly elected state officeholders and state and federal legislators switch from campaign mode to policymaking.