gavin newsom – Public Policy Institute of California

Special Elections Preview Fall Voting during COVID-19

Given the risk of transmitting the novel coronavirus, Governor Newsom has mandated that all California voters receive a vote-by-mail ballot for the November election; socially distant in-person voting options are being worked out. This approach was taken for two recent special elections—one in Congressional District (CD) 25 in north Los Angeles and eastern Ventura Counties, and one in State Senate District (SD) 28 in Riverside County. Both were runoffs, and both first-stage elections coincided with the March 3 presidential primary. Some observers are looking to these elections as test cases for November.

Over the past 30 years, when one stage of a special election has coincided with a regularly scheduled election and the other has not, the stand-alone election has always had lower turnout. On average, the difference has been 25%. In the May run-off election, however, turnout in the LA portion of CD 25 was slightly higher than turnout in March (38%, compared to 36%, as of May 19).

LA County was able to offer in-person voting as an option in both elections because it had already replaced traditional polling places with a smaller number of in-person “vote centers” open to all voters in the county. That may explain some of the strong turnout, but the shift away from polling places was more abrupt in the Ventura portion and turnout increased from 51% to 55%. And Riverside’s SD 28, where the shift was also sudden, saw only a modest drop in turnout (44% to 38%).

We should be careful not to draw too many conclusions from these numbers. Some of the turnout dynamics reflect the competition in each race. In CD 25 in particular, the runoff was unusually interesting for Republicans compared to the March 3 primary, so many more were probably motivated to vote.

More important, the fall will be a very different experience, involving more than 40 times as many voters in all 58 counties with a wide range of backgrounds. The scale of the response must expand to match. Neither Ventura nor Riverside was able to offer in-person voting. That has to change for the fall. Voters who prefer to cast ballots in person tend to come from populations that are already underrepresented. The question is not whether but how many in-person voting sites can be made available.

Nonetheless, the strong turnout in these special elections is a hopeful sign. There is still much work to be done, but it may be possible to conduct a fall election that is both safe and fair.

Public Higher Education in California Faces a Fiscal Crisis

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]As the coronavirus pandemic continues to disrupt California’s economy, the Newsom administration is projecting a $54 billion decline in state revenues for the 2021 fiscal year and revising the budget accordingly. California’s public universities—which do not have dedicated funding streams or constitutional protections—face disproportionately large funding cuts. So far, the federal government has provided some emergency relief to mitigate the pandemic’s unprecedented impact on higher education. Without additional support, however, the state’s public colleges might have to reduce student access and services.

During the Great Recession, a drop in state revenues of $40 billion in 2009 led to cuts equaling roughly one-third of state funding for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) systems (on a per student basis). Consequently, tuition doubled at UC and CSU, faculty and staff were laid off or furloughed, and critical capital improvements and maintenance were deferred.

In turn, students faced reduced access to courses, higher student-faculty ratios, increased costs, and fewer support services. As the economy improved, the state was able to increase allocations to the state’s colleges. As a result, UC and CSU admitted thousands of additional students, graduation rates went up, and the number of degrees awarded increased substantially.

Early evidence suggests that the global pandemic could have an even more dramatic fiscal impact on public higher education in California. In the short-term, public colleges face critical revenue shortages: now that students have been sent home and instruction has moved online, revenues from auxiliary enterprises (housing, food, parking, etc.) have evaporated. In addition, UC has suspended elective surgeries at its medical centers and is incurring costs associated with research and treatment of the coronavirus. CSU has projected revenue losses of $337 million for the spring semester, while UC projects a $500 million loss for the month of March alone.

In the longer-term, the systems may find it challenging to raise additional revenues. The percentage of out-of-state students—who pay higher tuition—is now capped at 18% for the five most popular UC campuses, and enrollment of international students is likely to decline due to visa and travel restrictions. Endowment funds are shrinking and tuition increases are controversial. Moreover, unprecedented levels of unemployment will increase demand for federal, state, and institutional financial aid programs.

Governor Newsom’s May budget revision includes a 10% cut for each public higher education system. The revised budget proposal also reduces state financial aid for students who attend nonprofit private colleges from $9,084 to $8,056 per year. The budget proposal does allow UC and CSU to redirect some restricted revenues and to refinance debt at historically low interest rates. However, without additional revenue–whether through federal or state support, or tuition increases—it will be difficult to improve access, quality, and student success in the coming years.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Video: Californians and Education

In the era of COVID-19, about eight in ten adults fear getting sick, and 80% expect bad economic times ahead. At a virtual briefing on Thursday, PPIC researcher Alyssa Dykman said the drop in consumer confidence “is unprecedented in the history of the PPIC survey.”

The event featured Dykman, who presented attitudes on K–12 education, funding, and policy preferences along with concerns over the coronavirus pandemic in the latest PPIC statewide survey. PPIC President and CEO Mark Baldassare supplied deeper context for key findings and responded to online questions.

Approval ratings have hit rare numbers: at 78%, approval has surged for Governor Newsom’s handling of K-12 education, and at 92%, public school parents express overwhelming support for school district handling of school closures. COVID-19, however, has shaken support for school bonds, with about half or fewer adults and likely voters saying it’s a good idea now for state government to fund school construction projects.

Baldassare underscored Californians’ concerns around health and finances, stating that two-thirds of adults are worried about both. Many say their lives are disrupted and about half say the stress is affecting mental health.

What do these concerns mean for California schools? “People are giving state leadership and local leadership a lot of leeway in how they respond to the public health and economic crisis,” Baldassare said. But the state will see its first test of this extraordinary support in May, when the governor submits a revised budget that will reflect revenue loss from a sharp economic downturn.

That may also lead to roadblocks for state and local school funding in November. In the March primary, “the defeat of most of the local school bond measures really caught a lot of people by surprise,” Baldassare said. “It was difficult to pass school funding measures.” At the moment Californians are hesitant to commit more funding to schools, which may impact voting on the split-roll property bond measure and others in the November election.

The survey offers several takeaways around planning for California public education. “We’ve never had anything like the school closures that are taking place,” Baldassare said. He reflected that Californians may reconsider the value of teachers going forward, including whether “teachers have the resources they need in order to do the job,” and noted that the public may have “a new understanding of the important and difficult role teachers play every day in the lives of public school children.”

Californians also may now recognize the struggles of vulnerable students, especially in terms of online access.

“It is going to be a test of Californians’ political will,” Baldassare said, “the degree to which we are committed to improving student outcomes, particularly among the large numbers of English language learners and low income students across the state.”

School Funding, COVID-19, and the 2020 Election Year

This post is excerpted from Mark Baldassare’s prepared remarks for the PPIC Statewide Survey virtual briefing on April 23, 2020.

State funding for K–12 public schools will take center stage when Governor Newsom unveils revisions to the state budget in a few weeks. The growing fiscal toll of the COVID-19 crisis is likely to affect school funding plans as a deep economic recession looms. K–12 schools have the largest share of the state General Fund, and many Californians say it is their top priority for state spending. Still, California voters seem to be pulling back their support for school funding on ballot measures.

One of the biggest surprises in the March 3 primary was the defeat of the Proposition 13 state school bond (53% voted no). The last time a state school bond failed to pass was back in 1994. Proponents have tried to explain away this loss as confusion caused by the number 13—the same as the notorious anti-tax initiative that passed in 1978.

However, outcomes of local school bond measures point to a different story. Bucking recent trends, 63% of local school bonds on the March primary ballot failed to reach the 55% threshold needed to pass. It may be that early anxieties about COVID-19 resulted in voter caution about extending debt. In the absence of exit polls to validate this theory, the April PPIC Statewide Survey sheds light on what may have happened. It also offers sobering news for efforts to convince voters to support school funding measures in the November election.

First, though, let’s dispense with the notion that views about school funding have fundamentally shifted. Today, 55% of California likely voters say that state funding for their local public schools is not enough. And 53% would vote yes on a state school bond while 50% would vote yes on a local school bond. Moreover, 53% percent would vote yes on a split roll property tax to fund local public schools—a measure that appears headed for the November ballot. All of these results today are similar to those last April, suggesting that basic attitudes about school funding are fairly stable.

But current conditions appear to be having a strong effect on the timeframe for public support. Our survey was conducted from April 1 to 9—roughly a month from the primary and a few weeks into stay-at-home orders. We find that most likely voters say it is a “bad idea” to issue state (54%) or local (54%) school bonds at this time. Majorities of Californians without children in public school agree (bad idea: state 56%, local 57%). Fewer than half across the state’s regions say it is a good idea to issue these bonds now. Only those with children in public school think that it is a good time to issue state (57%) or local school bonds (58%).

Why? Californians have had their world shaken by the COVID-19 crisis. Since January there has been a 36-point increase in expectations for bad economic times in California over the next 12 months (42% to 78%)—sending us to depths of consumer pessimism not seen since the Great Recession. And right now, 74% percent are worried about negative impacts of the coronavirus on their personal finances.

This pessimism is likely to have profound implications for school funding measures on the November ballot. The state’s fiscal and economic problems will weigh heavily on voters’ minds when they are asked to make decisions on spending, taxes, and bonds. Many may be reluctant to ask taxpayers (like themselves) to foot the bill, or to increase commercial property taxes, to make up for shortfalls in school funding.

We can also expect a rocky road ahead for the governor and state legislature. Although our April survey found a steep rise in the governor’s and legislature’s approval ratings around handling K–12 public education, state leaders now face the prospect of having to cut back on popular plans to increase school funding. During the Great Recession, we saw the governor’s and legislature’s approval ratings tumble with state budget cuts to local schools.

Our surveys will be closely monitoring all of these dynamics as California heads toward a much-anticipated November presidential election.

California’s Quick Response to COVID-19 Likely Saved Lives

As of April 21, nearly 5,000 Californians are hospitalized and more than 1,300 have died due to COVID-19, but proactive public health measures may have safeguarded many others. Because the coronavirus spreads exponentially, days matter. And early actions before the statewide shelter-in-place order may have proved especially effective in reducing transmission.

The Bay Area had some of the state’s earliest cases of coronavirus, which spurred a rapid response. Santa Clara was the first county to declare a public health emergency, and large companies in the region asked employees to work from home as early as the first week of March.

Seven Bay Area counties—including Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz—implemented shelter-in-place orders beginning on March 17. Los Angeles County instituted a comparable order mere days later, but the virus was already spreading rapidly.

As of now, regions are in different phases of flattening the COVID-19 death curve. In Los Angeles County, the last week of data suggest the number of deaths doubles about every 8 days. That is a faster rate than Florida (12 days), but still far slower than New York in its deadliest week—when deaths doubled almost every day.

Other parts of Southern California also saw a spike, with deaths doubling every 8 days. Meanwhile, at 12 days, deaths in the Bay Area are doubling more slowly, as they are in the Sacramento region at 15 days. Both the San Joaquin Valley and other parts of the state have essentially plateaued at 19 and 32 days.

Local policies have also curbed demand for COVID-19 hospital care. Statewide, hospitalizations and ICU beds filled due to COVID-19 have been trending downward for two weeks, but have ticked up slightly the last few days. Certain counties—notably Los Angeles—have continued to see an upward trend in COVID-19 patients in intensive care, although it does seem to be plateauing.

In Los Angeles in recent weeks COVID-19 patients occupied about 30% of total ICU beds, compared to less than 15% in the Bay Area. The San Joaquin Valley and Sacramento regions also seem to be faring well, with about 10% of ICU beds filled due to the coronavirus. Regional estimates of ICU occupancy rates (as of 2018) suggest hospitals can manage current levels of COVID-19 patients while meeting other intensive care needs.

Governor Newsom listed clear criteria for reopening the state’s economy in the midst of the global pandemic. All of California will meet certain benchmarks, such as data tracking and scientific advances in testing and treatment, on a single timeline. Others, such as plans for conducting business while social distancing and protecting vulnerable residents, will likely differ by region.

The state acknowledges that communities may reopen at different times based on circumstances. Recent experiences suggest that responsive local policies could help the state reopen while suppressing COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths.

The Coronavirus Pandemic Will Test the State’s Budget Reserves

As it grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, California faces an uncertain fiscal future. This global crisis has caused a sharp decline in economic activity, exposing crucial sectors to heightened risk. As discussions continue about when and how to re-open the economy, it is clear that the state will have to respond to significant fiscal challenges.

The good news is that California has made important changes to its reserve policies since the Great Recession. The passage of Proposition 2 (2014) created the Budget Stabilization Account—the state’s rainy day fund—as well as the Public School System Stabilization Account, a separate reserve for K–12 districts and community colleges. In addition, Governor Brown and the legislature created the Safety Net Reserve Fund to shore up Medi-Cal and CalWORKs funding during downturns.

The bad news is that a severe recession is likely to pose significant budgetary challenges. Drawing from the state’s experience during several recent recessions, PPIC estimated the budget ramifications of mild, moderate, and severe recessions and the capacity of state reserves to fill gaps. We found that the state’s reserve balance—estimated to be $17.9 billion—is large enough to withstand a mild recession such as the dot-com bust in the early 2000s.

However, a long and/or severe recession like the early 1980s oil shock (which lasted four years), or the early 1990s slump and the Great Recession—both of which were much more severe and lasted five years—would create large budget gaps and require policymakers to make difficult decisions. (It is important to note that the estimated reserve balance relies on the 2019–20 enacted budget and that it will change when revenue estimates are updated in May.)

In the meantime, the federal government has stepped in. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act includes an increase in the federal share of Medicaid payments and reimbursements to states that are expanding public assistance programs. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provides about $2.2 trillion; some aid goes directly to families, some goes to schools, and some to state and local governments. Additionally, two federal disaster declarations make many of California’s COVID-19 expenditures eligible for at least partial reimbursement.

Governor Newsom has requested additional federal assistance, including flexible aid to state and local governments, a further extension of unemployment insurance benefits, and expanded support for safety net programs, small businesses, K–12 and higher education systems, childcare, and broadband.

The state is also making significant changes to the 2020 budget process. The Department of Finance is drafting a “workload” budget for the May Revision that will set the baseline for the final budget to be enacted in June. This will limit spending increases while allowing for growth in programs—particularly safety net programs—that expect increased demand. The legislature will revisit the budget for an “August Revision” that reflects changes in the state’s financial condition. As these processes move forward, PPIC will continue to monitor California’s evolving fiscal challenges and steps being taken to address them.

Race, Health, and the Risk of COVID-19 Complications

For adults younger than 65, many underlying health conditions are emerging as risk factors that can lead to severe complications of COVID-19. Within this larger population, certain minority groups are under particular threat due to disproportionate rates of such conditions. While California’s overall share of nonelderly adults at risk is relatively low, disparities in health endanger some more than others during this health crisis.

Governor Newsom cited protecting individuals most at risk of COVID-19 complications as a necessary criterion for restarting California’s economy. Though we cannot yet draw conclusions from incomplete data—about one-third of cases and over a tenth of deaths do not have complete data on race and ethnicity—certain risk factors are more prevalent along racial and ethnic lines.

According to the Center for Disease Control, potential risk factors include heart disease, diabetes, severe obesity (BMI greater than 40), and uncontrolled asthma; smoking is also likely to increase risk. In California, over 60% of Native Americans and about 46% of African Americans have at least one of those health concerns. By comparison, roughly one-third of whites, Latinos, and Asian Americans have one or more of these health issues.

Native Americans are diagnosed with heart disease at rates almost four times that of whites (19% to 5%), have higher rates of smoking (51% to 14%), and double the uncontrolled asthma (12% to 6%). African Americans have much higher rates of diabetes (24% to 14%) and severe obesity (12% to 4%) than whites. Asian Americans and Latinos also have higher rates of diabetes (about 19%) compared to whites (14%).

Due to higher poverty and uninsured rates, minority groups also face more difficulty accessing health care. At the same time, individuals in these populations may frequently hold jobs with a higher risk of exposure to coronavirus.

The California Department of Public Health has begun to publish data on cases and deaths by race/ethnicity. Some counties, such as San Francisco, are doing the same at the local level. While limited testing capacity and incomplete data prevent a true understanding of who is most impacted by the coronavirus, better knowledge of existing health disparities can help California protect and heal its most at-risk members as the state plans its next steps in responding to the public health crisis.

California’s Most Isolated Seniors

Seniors are especially vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. First and foremost, of course, are health concerns. The latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that seniors are twenty times more likely to die of COVID-19 than are people younger than 65 (21 deaths per 100,000 compared to 1 death per 100,000 as of April 15). But seniors also face other significant challenges during this time of shelter-in-place, including social isolation. California’s efforts to support seniors through the pandemic can help counter these challenges.

Studies suggest that social isolation can lead to increased risk of mental and physical health conditions, including depression, cognitive decline, and elevated blood pressure. Most immediately, isolated seniors might have an especially difficult time taking care of daily living tasks as they shelter at home.

In California, 1.3 million seniors live alone (23% of 5.5 million seniors). They are disproportionately older, female, and widowed. Many have self-care limitations and a relatively large share live in poverty. Regionally, most live in the state’s large metropolitan areas, but many small rural areas of the state have very high shares of seniors living alone.

Of particular concern are those who do not have internet access. Among seniors who live alone, that’s 400,000 people. Another 40,000 have internet access but no smartphone, laptop, or tablet. They are perhaps the most socially isolated and vulnerable population in the state.

For these seniors, keeping up to date on the pandemic, ordering groceries and medicine from home, and connecting with others are all much more difficult. With libraries physically closed, a common access point to online services for many seniors is now unavailable, compounding the difficulty of overcoming social isolation.

Governor Newsom’s “Stay Home. Save Lives. Check In” campaign “urges all Californians to check in on vulnerable neighbors with a call, text or physically-distanced door knock” and is working with groups like AARP to reach out to older Californians. With many Californians now working from home, the time and opportunity to safely engage with older neighbors have never been greater—or the need more acute.

Emergency Child Care for Essential Workers

Of the state’s estimated 5.1 million essential workers, about 1.9 million have children younger than 13. These parents may be having difficulty finding care for their children amid the COVID-19 crisis, with most schools closed and many child care providers shuttered.

To address this need, the California Department of Education issued guidelines last Thursday for temporarily restructuring state-provided child care services. Parents who are essential workers can apply for services during the pandemic even as the state continues to prioritize certain at-risk children regardless of parents’ occupations.

Child care programs that receive state funds are now encouraged to remain open—or to reopen—if they can safely do so in order to care for the children of essential workers. To be eligible, all parents in the household must be essential workers and require child care so they can continue working (for example, they do not have the option to work remotely).

More than half a million essential workers with about 640,000 children younger than 13 could qualify. About 43% of these essential workers have a youngest child between 0 and 4 years old at home, while the rest have older children. Most of these parents work in health-related occupations, which are prioritized in the guidelines to receive child care services.

On Monday, Governor Newsom announced that $100 million of the funds allocated in SB 89, emergency legislation to fight the coronavirus pandemic, will go toward funding up to 20,000 more short-term child care slots—and making child care programs safe for those children and their teachers. The CARES act provides federal funds to states for these purposes, so California will recoup these expenditures.

While we don’t know how many state-subsidized programs have remained open, even in the best of times the number of spaces is limited so most children—including those in low-income families—cannot access such care. However, demand for child care is indicated by the number of children in low-income, essential worker families. During this emergency, essential worker families do not need to show they are low income when they seek child care. However, programs are instructed to prioritize families.

About 400,000 children in essential worker families live on incomes below 85% of the state median—the income cut-off for state preschool in normal times. While a majority of parents in essential jobs work in health occupations, most low-income children have parents working in other essential occupations. In other words, tension may arise between serving children of low-income essential workers and serving children of health workers.

In this time of uncertainty, the state has existing capacity to support child care, and it has shifted the goals of state-supported programs to help essential workers meet—and afford—their child care needs. By tracking the response, the state could gain insight into whether it is meeting the needs of essential workers in this difficult time, how to meet these needs in the longer term, and to what extent needs vary across the state.

Severe COVID-19 Infections May Threaten California’s Prisons

An inmate in the California prison system has tested positive for COVID-19, as have several corrections officers. California invests more than any other state in prisoners’ health, due to ongoing federal oversight mandating that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) provide adequate health care. But overcrowded conditions where social distancing is improbable could intensify COVID-19 outbreaks in California’s prisons.

To limit the spread of COVID-19 between local communities and prisons, Governor Newsom has issued an executive order halting prison admissions and transfers to community-based reentry programs. Inmates who fall ill are being isolated, and those who work in prisons, including corrections officers and health professionals, are being screened before entering. Similar efforts to contain outbreaks are not unusual in CDCR. However, they usually apply to one prison, rather than to the entire system.

Overcrowding may exacerbate the potential for COVID-19 to spread rapidly though prison systems, threatening prisoners, corrections officers, and prison health professionals alike. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about half of the country’s prison systems operate at or above capacity. In California, a court order mandates that the prison population remain under 137.5 percent of capacity. Currently, the prison population stands at just under 123,000, and the prisons are at 134 percent of capacity.

Prison environments also limit inmates’ and prison workers’ ability to practice social distancing. Dormitories present special challenges. The inmates who live in them and the correctional officers who supervise them must safely navigate open space in concert with each other. However, the cells in which most prisoners are housed present social distancing challenges of their own. While some inmates live alone, most have a cellmate. In some prisons, cell sizes fall short of the standard 25 to 35 square feet of space per person. Cellmates also typically sleep in bunk beds, which do not have six feet between the top and bottom bunks.

In addition, California’s prisoners may be particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because they are older or have preexisting medical conditions. In 2018, more than 30,000 inmates (24%) were over age 50, and over 5,000 (4%) were over 65. Prison populations tend to be far less healthy than the general public—9% of California’s inmates were classified as high clinical risk in 2012, meaning they had serious medical conditions that required significant resources to manage.

During COVID-19 infections, even mild or moderate chronic health problems that would usually be manageable could lead to serious complications. Illnesses that compromise the immune system or weaken the lungs can increase the risk of poor outcomes associated with COVID-19. According to California Correctional Health Care Services, more than 10,000 inmates were treated for hepatitis C in 2018. Approximately 8,000 of California’s inmates are diabetic. Twelve percent of male and one in five female inmates used medication to treat asthma in 2010—about double the rate among Californians. In 2015, 0.8 percent of California’s inmates were HIV positive—also more than double the rate among Californians. The heightened vulnerability of California’s prisoners to serious COVID-19 infections also puts the corrections officers who work alongside them and the health professionals who care for them at elevated risk for contracting the illness.

While older people are at greatest risk of severe outcomes related to COVID-19, younger people, particularly those with preexisting conditions, are also vulnerable to severe outcomes. If an outbreak happens within the prison system, many CDCR workers and inmates—young and old—may be at higher risk of experiencing serious complications as living conditions, age, and preexisting medical conditions combine to amplify the threat from COVID-19.