federal funding – Public Policy Institute of California

Video: Countdown to Census 2020

Census Day 2020 is fast approaching, and results from the population count will determine political representation and federal funding for California for the next 10 years. Speaking at a PPIC event in Sacramento last week, Alex Padilla, California secretary of state, joined Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of PPIC, to reflect on the importance of counting the country’s most populous state.

Padilla stressed that along with billions in funding for education, health care, and other critical areas, the count affects the state’s representation in Congress as well as lines drawn at all district levels. “It affects you regardless of the issues you care about, regardless of where you live,” Padilla said. He further emphasized that the census is a population count, not a citizen or adult count. In 2010, California undercounted children under five, which led to underfunded schools over the next 10 years. “Here is a way to make sure schools get the funding they deserve without raising taxes.”

Following the conversation with the secretary of state, Sarah Bohn, PPIC vice president of research and senior fellow, convened an expert panel that expanded on strategies at the frontlines for reaching hard-to-count communities.

Assemblymember Marc Berman discussed the investment by California— which has directed $187 million toward census infrastructure at state, regional, and local levels—that sets the groundwork for outreach and coordination. Partner organizations are now pushing a public awareness and information campaign. “Nobody has ever tried anything like this in a state of 40 million people at the level of specificity and detail that we really need to be successful,” Berman said.

Success depends on participation, however, and trust in government can influence participation in the census—especially among hard-to-count groups who may feel suspicion of the federal government. Apathy is another obstacle. Carolyn Coleman, executive director for the League of California Cities, described how the census returns funds to communities: “We send a lot of dollars to Washington, DC, every year via the tax code, and this is one of the most important ways we get those dollars reinvested back into our communities.”

It takes coordination by trusted messengers to reach hard-to-count groups and communicate this idea. Ditas Katague, director of California Complete Count, said, “We have amazing partners on all levels—whether we’ve contracted them, whether they are foundations, whether they’re state agencies.” Katague outlined efforts by a Sacramento organization mapping territory from the Oregon border to Yolo County, and San Diego ambassadors doing outreach in Arabic, Kurdish, Farsi, Vietnamese, and Somali. Regions are playing to their strengths: Silicon Valley is emphasizing tech; the San Joaquin Valley is partnering with faith-based organizations.

Californians can participate in the census starting in March, and assistance centers around the state will offer help through April. Katague emphasized the importance of motivating others to complete it, saying, “There are 9 questions on the census. It takes 10 minutes to secure the future for the next 10 years.”

Video: Counting the Central Valley

The 2020 Census is fast approaching, and the stakes are high for California—political representation and federal funding are on the line. The San Joaquin Valley, with a population of 4.3 million, may be one of the state’s hardest-to-count regions. In Sacramento last Friday, PPIC convened a discussion about how valley communities are preparing for the census.

California has long been home to high numbers of “hard to count” residents—including young children, renters, and immigrants. In 2020, the difficulty of counting all Californians will be greater than ever. PPIC researcher Joe Hayes outlined the challenges, which range from uneven internet access to a lack of trust: “Individuals are less likely to respond out of privacy concerns, on the one hand, but also out of distrust for the federal government.”

The good news is that state and local governments have invested heavily in outreach. Complete Count Committees have been established counties across the state, and community-based organizations are spearheading outreach efforts. To help guide these efforts, PPIC created interactive maps that show hard-to-count communities across the state. Maria Jeans, program coordinator for the Maddy Institute, moderated a panel discussion about the factors that make counting the Central Valley so challenging—and how challenges are being addressed.

Jesus Martinez, executive director of Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative, highlighted the challenge of organizational capacity. As local preparations for the census got under way in 2018, he realized that “only a handful” of those who wanted to get involved “had any type of personal or institutional experience with the census.”

Don Saylor, a Yolo County supervisor, cited the difficulty of reaching remote rural settings across the Central Valley and the large numbers of farmworkers, language minorities, young children, and residences with multiple households. He included students enrolled at UC Davis and other colleges in the Central Valley—especially those “who are renters, living in different kinds of group settings”—as a hard-to-count population.

The panelists agreed that the fear generated by federal immigration rhetoric and policies are particularly challenging for the Central Valley. As a result, census outreach must focus on more than just making sure California gets its fair share of federal funding. As Martinez put it, “This is a human rights and civil rights issue for us now. It is the right of immigrants to be included in the 2020 Census.” Much of the outreach involves person-to-person conversations—canvassing and phone banking, “house meetings” among neighbors, and interactive media.

Cindy Quezada, senior program officer at Sierra Health Foundation, noted that encouraging people to participate is not the only challenge. “Sometimes people might want to participate but they don’t have a way to,” she said. “Either you’re living in a trailer in a backyard so you’re not going to get the invite and you’re not going to get an enumerator visit, or you may not speak a language that’s supported.” These structural barriers “are something we should really be paying attention to.”

Motivating Californians to Fill Out the 2020 Census

The 2020 Census will determine the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds and the accuracy of political representation at the local, state, and federal levels. Emphasizing the benefits to local communities is likely the best way to encourage participation and counteract the concerns many Californians have about confidentiality.

The latest PPIC Statewide Survey shows that 63% of Californians are concerned about whether the Census Bureau will keep their responses confidential, as the law requires. The concern is more acute among Latinos (74%) and African Americans (74%) than among Asian Americans (64%) or whites (52%). Immigrants are also much more likely to be concerned than US-born residents.

The Census Bureau conducted an extensive survey and a set of focus groups to identify key reasons for people’s possible reluctance to participate in the census, as well as potential motivating factors that could improve participation. The focus groups revealed that merely informing people of the Census Bureau’s data protection policies was unlikely to assuage concerns.

Focus group participants across all demographic groups identified the census’s role in providing federal funding for communities as the main motivator for responding to the census. And 62% of survey respondents said that benefits to the community—determining funding (30%), contributing to a better future for the community (17%), and providing information for local planning (15%)—are the most important reason to fill out the census.

But fewer than half of survey respondents knew that the census is used to determine local funding levels, suggesting that this information could go a long way toward motivating participation. Focus group participants—who were chosen from demographic groups deemed likely to respond at low rates—also indicated that hearing directly from trusted voices in their own communities would be important.

Community organizations and elected officials are already acting on this information. On April 1, Los Angeles city and county officials convened a rally to promote the census, emphasizing the link to federal tax dollars for local programs. The Hispanic Federation’s messaging also highlights the census’s role in allocating federal funds.

More efforts are underway. Governor Newsom has pledged an investment of $187 million for outreach activities to boost participation. Meanwhile, the California Complete Count Office has begun issuing grants to help local organizations communicate directly with hard-to-count populations.

Focusing on local funding and community benefits is a promising approach, but a strong outreach strategy will have to go further. A complete and accurate count will likely depend on hard-to-count populations working to develop and deliver the most effective messages for their own communities.

Interview: Citizenship and the 2020 Census

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

After a heated legal battle, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot for now include a question on the 2020 Census asking if residents are US citizens. We spoke with PPIC senior fellow Eric McGhee about what this decision means for California.

PPIC: Why is the citizenship question controversial?

Eric McGhee: First, the question could significantly discourage responses among immigrants, who might fear the data would be used to target them. It didn’t go through the normal testing process for new questions, and many Census Bureau employees recommended against adding it because of concerns about data quality.

Second, the Trump administration says the question is necessary to properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. But advocates for immigrant communities dispute this justification and argue that current citizenship data is sufficient to protect against voting discrimination.

Third, it could have a huge impact on political representation and how congressional and state legislative districts are drawn. Districts are currently drawn based on total population. But this question could make it possible for states to use citizens or voting-eligible residents instead, which would tilt representation in favor of those groups.

PPIC: What does all this mean for California?

EM: Response rates will likely be better if the question is not added. But there’s also concern that the damage has already been done—immigrants still might not be inclined to respond. Immigrants make up about a quarter of California’s population, so we’re particularly vulnerable.

A large undercount could result in less federal funding for California. We’re also the only state at risk of losing a congressional seat from an undercount—other states with high immigrant populations like Arizona and Texas might not gain as many seats, but they probably won’t lose a seat they already have, even if there’s a bad count.

Households with undocumented members are the most likely to be undercounted. PPIC research looked at the possibility of a 10% undercount of these households, a reasonable assumption based on existing research. It would mean missing about half a million Californians.

The reality is that census data is thoroughly protected, even from law enforcement agencies like the FBI and ICE. But our May PPIC survey—conducted before the Supreme Court decision—found 63% of Californians were concerned the Census Bureau will not keep responses confidential. Latinos (74%), immigrants (71%), and African Americans (70%) were especially likely to be concerned.

There are other uncertainties too. The 2020 Census will use a new internet-based approach, which hasn’t been comprehensively tested. And people in general are becoming more reluctant to respond to the census. This means the bureau has to do more follow-up, which is expensive and increases the likelihood of problems arising.

PPIC: What can California do to ensure a complete and accurate count?

EM: California is way ahead of other states in terms of funds it has dedicated to census outreach. The state has already appropriated about $100 million to support a better count, and Governor Newsom has proposed another $50 million or so. Philanthropic organizations have chipped in about $30 million. There’s been a great deal of planning at the state and local levels to get the best count possible.

Addressing concerns about confidentiality could go a long way toward encouraging people to respond. Research also suggests that raising awareness about the census’s role in funding public services like health care, roads, highways, and fire and police departments is another promising approach.

2020 Census: Will All of California’s Children Be Counted?

This post is part of a series examining challenges involved in the 2020 Census and what’s at stake for California. Click here to see our full coverage.

As the country gears up for the 2020 Census, one big challenge will be ensuring a complete and accurate count of young children. Nationwide, the 2010 Census missed nearly a million children under five years old, including about 210,000 young Californians, according to Census Bureau estimates.

This undercount—which has worsened in the past few decades—has consequences for political representation at the federal, state, and local levels. An inaccurate census could also affect federal funding for educational and health programs. For example, the distribution of Head Start funds depends in part on census counts to determine the number of young children living in poverty.

Young children were undercounted by 4.6% in 2010, the worst undercount across all age groups. In contrast, people in their late teens and early twenties, as well as those over age 50, were overcounted—meaning people in these age groups were often erroneously included in multiple households.

The count of young children in California was even less accurate: 7.7% of Californians ages 0–4 were undercounted in the 2010 Census, the third-highest rate in the nation. In follow-up research, the Census Bureau has found that households in Monterey County, much of the Central Valley, Los Angeles County, the Inland Empire, and Imperial County were especially likely to indicate confusion over whether to include young children when completing their census questionnaires.

Multiple reasons account for why young children are often missed in the census. Families may forget to include newborns or children who split their time between two homes. Young children in low-income families and those with young or single parents are especially at risk of being undercounted.

Young children are also more likely than other age groups to live in households with multiple generations, unmarried partners, nonrelatives, or extended family—which can lead to confusion over who should be included in the census form. African American, Latino, and Native American children are much more likely than white children to live in households with these kinds of “complex” living arrangements, which have probably become more common in California because of the housing crisis.

In preparation for the 2020 Census, the Census Bureau has taken several steps to improve its count of young children. These include adjusting the wording on the census form to clarify that everyone living in the household should be included, as well as undertaking advertising and education campaigns about the importance of counting all children.

California has committed $100 million for census outreach, and the governor has proposed an additional $54 million for the next fiscal year. The California Complete Count Committee, which is spearheading the state’s efforts, has allocated these funds to the state’s hard-to-count communities, with options for many other organizations to receive funding. Given what we know about the historical difficulties of counting young children, it will be particularly important for community organizations and agencies working with young children and families to be involved with outreach efforts.

How the Census Affects State Finances

The US Constitution requires a decennial census for the purposes of determining how many seats each state will have in the House of Representatives. Just as critical, a number of federal programs rely on census data to calculate the share of federal dollars distributed to each state. In the case of California, the census-connected funds are big money. Undercounting Californians in the upcoming census could have significant fiscal consequences for the state.

Federal dollars account for more than one-third all state spending (including the general fund, special funds, and bonds). This translates into more than $100 billion in state spending derived from the federal government.

Not all federal programs rely on the census to determine the distribution of dollars, but the vast majority are connected to it in some way. One study estimates that 132 federal programs rely on census data to distribute more than $675 billion. Another estimates the share of census-related funding for the largest programs for each state. For California, that amount was $77 billion, or more than 80 percent of the federal funds the state received in 2015 (the most recent estimate available).

Given the dollars at stake, getting an accurate count of California’s residents is critical—but could be a challenge since large segments of California’s population are historically difficult to count.

But population counts alone do not determine funding, so it is difficult to precisely forecast the impact of an undercount. Compounding the difficulty, the way federal programs use census data to allocate dollars varies, and in some cases, involves other factors such as the relative wealth of the state. For example, a significant share of census-related dollars are determined by a specific federal reimbursement rate. Because California already receives the minimum rate, an undercount would not reduce the amount of federal dollars that the state can count on.

Finally, the use of the census to distribute dollars is, in some cases, a zero-sum-game. For California to avoid “losing” relative to other states, it needs to count as well, or better, than the rest of the country. Other large states—notably Texas and Florida—face similar challenges.

California’s creation of a state committee to ensure an accurate count—along with funding to support such efforts—are crucial to a successful outcome. In fact, a relatively modest investment has the potential to provide enormous returns to the state.

Video: Preparing California for the 2020 Census

The 2020 census will be a defining moment for California. Much is at stake—including billions in federal funds and the state’s political representation in the US Congress. The lasting impact of an undercount can’t be overstated. Governments, K–12 and higher education institutions, businesses, and nonprofits depend on the census to understand the needs of their communities, target services, and plan for the future.

A panel of experts discussed the critical role of the decennial census at a PPIC event in Sacramento on April 24. They examined the challenges of reaching “hard-to-count” communities, the state’s part in ensuring an accurate tally, the impact of the recently-added citizenship question, and more.

The event opened with a wide-ranging conversation between Marc Berman, state assembly member, and Mark Baldassare, PPIC president. One of Berman’s biggest concerns is that California could lose its political clout in DC. The state has “40 million unique stories,” he said, and the census is about “making sure that every voice” gets counted. But the new citizenship question is counterproductive, in his view. We know that adding it “will discourage a lot of people from participating,” he said. “People are so fearful” that it could make a successful census count that much more difficult, he added.

For the first time, the US Census Bureau will try to collect most responses (55%) online, with the rest obtained by mail or in person. John Thompson, former director of the bureau, identified the government’s main rationale for the change—namely, cost. He also detailed best practices for adding a new census question: In the past, he said, the bureau would spend years testing it, partly to craft appropriate messaging and to ensure that residents were comfortable answering it. The new citizenship question did not have that review, a concern Thompson raised with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to no avail.

John Dobard, associate director of political voice with Advancement Project California, discussed ways to involve the state’s hard-to-reach communities. One way to overcome residents’ fear of participation, he said, is to involve trusted leaders in outreach. Otherwise, entire multi-generational immigrant families could be left out.

An undercount could mean a direct hit to essential state services—such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program. In that scenario, young children in poverty would be hurt most of all, said Sarah Bohn, a panelist and PPIC research fellow.

Ditas Katague, the state’s 2020 census director, said her office is steeped in planning for the statewide rollout. Importantly, she said, California needs an “agile, flexible ground team,” and called on citizen volunteers to join state and local agencies, nonprofits, and philanthropic groups to help make that happen.

Federal Funds and California’s Budget

California receives a lot of direct funding—more than $100 billion—from the federal government. Should federal officials make changes to the programs that provide these funds, the state would feel the impact quickly, with the most vulnerable Californians bearing the brunt. As lawmakers begin to work on the state budget in earnest, there is less certainty surrounding the contribution of federal funds than in prior years.

Governor Brown’s current budget proposal estimates that federal support will contribute about $106 billion dollars to state and local programs (a large share of the funds “pass through” state departments and are distributed to counties, school districts, and other entities). That would represent a record amount.

In the past, federal revenue to California hovered between $70 and $80 billion. After implementation of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare), the total level of federal assistance to the state rose beyond the $100 billion mark—mainly because of the expansion of Medi-Cal.

Though it is the largest, Medi-Cal isn’t the only state program that relies on the federal government for a significant share of total revenue. From CalTrans to the California Department of Education, billions of federal dollars provide support for state and local efforts.

Today, relying on that federal revenue could be hazardous. The Trump administration and congressional Republicans have expressed an interest in making significant changes to key programs. For instance, food stamps—known by its federal moniker as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and as CalFresh here in California—may look very different over time. Trump’s proposal limits the ability of recipients to choose which foods they can purchase, claiming that these limitations will save money. These purported savings underpin a proposed 30% overall cut to the program over the next decade.

Should funding for these programs be cut, California—as the nation’s largest state—would bear the greatest dollar reduction. And the state’s poorest would feel the greatest impact. PPIC research has found that the state’s social safety net programs often spell the difference between being in or out of poverty for hundreds of thousands of residents. For example, CalFresh moves 800,000 people out of poverty. The impact of CalWORKs—the state’s welfare program—is smaller, but significant (400,000 moved from poverty). The effect of funding reductions today could be amplified in the next recession, when unemployment rises, incomes fall, and more people seek these benefits.

In the past, California, like other states, could look to the federal government as a reliable source of revenue for many of its programs, especially those making up the social safety net. In fact, the federal government has even served as a partial fiscal buffer during economic downturns, increasing spending when state generated revenues fell. The state, however, cannot take the level of federal support as a given and, for now, will have to navigate in an environment of fiscal uncertainty, particularly with regard to programs that serve the poor. In this budget building season, state leaders will need to consider how best to cope with the possibility of reduced federal assistance in the immediate future.