Tag: higher education

Testimony: California’s Exclusive Electorate & the 2016 Election

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, testified before the Assembly Select Committee on Civic Engagement in Los Angeles today (May 13, 2016). Here are his prepared remarks.

“If the trends in voting continue, we face the prospect of an electorate making policy choices that neglect the realities and problems facing large segments of California society.” I wrote these words in a 2006 PPIC report, California’s Exclusive Electorate. The report analyzed trends in the state’s electorate from 1990 through May 2006 and polling results from the PPIC Statewide Surveys from 2005 to 2006. It revealed the gulf in political preferences between the state’s voters and the majority of its adult population, and suggested that if California’s nonvoting adult population made their voices heard at the ballot box, the political status quo could change—dramatically. In other words, the choices that voters make do not necessarily represent the preferences—or the needs—of California’s broader population. These disparities could be a problem for any state and are not unique to California.1 However, for California, a state that calls on its voters not only to elect representatives but also to make so much policy through ballot initiatives, these disparities raise real concerns.

In the years since that report, voter participation has continued to fall while the state’s population has become larger and more diverse. This troubling trend, especially notable in primaries and midterm elections, has motivated a statewide conversation about advancing civic engagement and increasing voter participation in California. Compounding this concern is our finding that California’s likely voters—who decide the fate of candidates and ballot initiatives—do not represent the demographics or the policy preferences of the state’s adult population.

At a time when new approaches to boosting voter turnout are being implemented and proposed, and as we approach the 2016 presidential election, it seemed important to update our work on the electorate. Using PPIC Statewide Survey data from 2015—drawn from about 12,000 interviews during seven monthly surveys that included voting and nonvoting adult Californians—our 2016 PPIC report paints a comprehensive picture of likely voters and their nonvoting counterparts. Once again, we find that the people who go to the polls in California are very different from those who don’t; they have different demographic characteristics—such as age, education, homeownership, immigration, income, and race/ethnicity. They also have different political attitudes and policy preferences. As California’s population continues to expand and change, the voting rolls are not keeping pace, and the state’s voters remain unrepresentative of its population.

In our 2016 report, we found a strong connection between economic inequality and political inequality. Likely voters in California tend to be older, white, college educated, affluent, U.S. born, and homeowners. They tend to identify themselves as “haves”—rather than “have nots”—when asked to choose between these two economic categories. Nonvoters tend to be younger, Latino, renters, less affluent, less likely to be college educated, and not U.S. born—and they generally identify themselves as “have nots.” Voters and nonvoters differ noticeably in their views on the role of government, taxes and spending, ballot choices, and elected officials—all of which come into play during an election year and influence governing choices in the long term.

California’s recent steps to encourage voter participation are a step in the right direction, but the divide between voters and nonvoters is deep and persistent. Why has the exclusive electorate phenomenon that we identified 10 years ago been so difficult to change? State laws that make it easier to register to vote and cast ballots are helping to expand the electorate, but only to a limited degree. When eligible adults are asked why they are not registered to vote, most cite a lack of confidence or a lack of interest in elections, a lack of trust in government, and a lack of time to vote. When registered voters are asked why they do not always vote, their top reasons are a lack of interest and time and low levels of confidence and trust.2

More fundamentally, the broad demographic and economic shifts underway in the state are shaping the divide between California’s voters and nonvoters today. Immigration is one important factor. Millions of California adults are documented and undocumented noncitizens. The share of the adult population that is undocumented is on the decline, but it is still a large segment of California society. Public and private efforts are needed to encourage more noncitizens to become citizens and join the voter rolls. Comprehensive federal immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship is another key ingredient in creating a larger and more diverse electorate. Other powerful socioeconomic factors help determine political participation. A significant share of California’s population is living in poverty, housing costs in coastal regions are high, and the state economy is likely to face a shortage of college-educated workers in the near future. Efforts to increase economic opportunity through policies that produce high-paying jobs, provide affordable housing, and increase college graduation rates would also grow and diversify the electorate.3

How will these ongoing trends in political and economic inequality affect the 2016 election cycle? As is always the case, voter turnout will increase and demographic profiles will broaden for the November presidential election. Still, we expect to see a large divide between voters and nonvoters this year. Once again, California faces the prospect of an electorate making policy decisions that neglect the realities and problems facing large and growing segments of society.

What are the larger consequences of uneven participation rates and low voter turnout? First, the fact that a relatively small group of voters is making decisions about elected representatives and public policy raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the democratic system. Next, because the haves in society are the frequent voters, and so many of the have nots are not voting or are not registered to vote, our electoral process does not reflect the broad economic and political interests of all adults. Last, likely voters and nonvoters have different perspectives on the role of government, government spending, ballot choices, and the state’s elected officials.

What might happen if voters were more representative of California’s adult population? There could be more voter support for policies that increase spending for health care and education, and for an expansion of the government’s role in improving the lives of immigrants and the less economically advantaged. If large numbers of new voters continue to register with “no party preference” and the proportion of major party voters continues to shrink, the power of independent voters in determining election outcomes could be bolstered. Finally, growth and change in the electorate could initially produce more political instability, as elected officials, candidates, political parties, and initiative campaigns reach out to a larger and more diverse electorate.4

In the long run, having a larger and more engaged electorate that is more representative of the people of California would be a source of political stability for a state that increasingly relies on the ballot box to make its major policy decisions.

1. Raymond E. Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (Yale University Press, 1980); Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood,” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 41-56, 2002; Karthick Ramakrishnan, Democracy in Immigrant America, (Stanford University Press, 2005); Mark Baldassare, At Issue: Improving California’s Democracy (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2012); Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler. Who Votes Now? (Princeton University Press, 2014).
2. Mark Baldassare, Dean Bonner, David Kordus, and Lunna Lopes, “Voter Participation in California,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, September 2015).
3. Laura Hill and Joseph Hayes, “Undocumented Immigrants,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, June 2015); Sarah Bohn, Caroline Danielson, and Monica Bandy, “Poverty in California,” Just the Facts (Public Policy Institute of California, December 2015); Hans Johnson, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Sarah Bohn, Will California Run Out of College Graduates?, (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2015); Hans Johnson and Marisol Cuellar Mejia, California’s Future: Housing, (Public Policy Institute of California, February 2015).
4. Jack Citrin, Eric Schickler, and John Sides, “What If Everyone Voted?” American Journal of Political Science 47 (1) 75-90, 2003; Mark Baldassare, At Issue: Improving California’s Democracy, (Public Policy Institute of California, October 2012); Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler, Who Votes Now? (Princeton University Press, 2014).

Paying for Higher Education

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

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

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

California’s New Leaders Focus on Poverty

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins and Senator Kevin de León, who will take over as senate president pro tem later this month, each told a Sacramento audience about growing up in poverty and the role it has played in their shared view of the state’s responsibility to those in need.

“We share similar values and similar stories that have made us care about the values and the issues that we’re talking about today,” said Atkins, who was raised in a poor, rural Virginia family and now represents the San Diego area. De León, who was born in San Diego and represents Los Angeles, said he is the youngest child of a single immigrant mother and the only family member to graduate from high school. Atkins and de León, both Democrats, were elected by their respective legislative chambers earlier this year to serve as leaders.

Both lawmakers cited a recent PPIC report — Child Poverty and the Social Safety Net in California by Caroline Danielson and Sarah Bohn — that said about 50% of California children live in poverty or near-poverty. The remarks, part of the PPIC 2014 Speaker Series, were made to a capacity audience of about 400 in the ballroom of the Sheraton Grand Hotel. The discussion was moderated by PPIC President Mark Baldassare and streamed live to hundreds more.

The wide-ranging conversation touched on a number of major issues—including health care, the drought, immigration, and taxes. Both leaders said that they believe the state should talk about changes to the state tax structure and consider whether to extend the temporary taxes that voters passed in Proposition 30. Atkins cautioned that it will be difficult to gain support from voters for an extension of the taxes.

De León expressed strong support for affirmative action, which he credited for his ability to attend college and become a legislator. He also said California should continue to lead on immigration issues because the federal government has been unable to pass a reform plan. And he noted that polls suggest Californians support health coverage for undocumented residents.

Atkins, meanwhile, encouraged more cities to follow San Francisco and San Jose, which recently increased the minimum wage. Both leaders also said they have worked together in the past and believe they will have a good working relationship going forward.

Now Hiring: Skilled Health Workers

Changing medical technology, an aging population, and new health care policies have raised important questions about the workforce that will be needed to care for patients in the future. These issues were featured in a new report from PPIC—California’s Healthcare Workforce Needs: Training Allied Workers—and discussed at a luncheon in Sacramento on Friday that included a briefing by coauthor Shannon McConville, PPIC research associate.

The report notes that California will have to add 450,000 jobs to its health workforce over the next decade. With nearly 40 percent of these additional health jobs expected to require some college training below a bachelor’s degree, training programs at California’s community colleges and private two-year institutions will play an important role.

Participating in the panel discussion were Dr. Jocelyn Freeman Garrick, director of the Alameda County Health Pipeline Partnership; Catherine Martin, vice president of the California Hospital Association; and PPIC research fellow Sarah Bohn, a report coauthor. The panel, which was moderated by PPIC research director Patrick Murphy, explored the challenges faced by both public and private higher education institutions in keeping up with rapidly advancing skills requirements in the health care industry. Topics included differences between public and private schools and programs and partnerships that can train Californians for health workforce needs.

Is College the Answer to Income Inequality?

In both California and the nation, income inequality is at or near record levels. Educational attainment is by far the single most important determinant of an individual’s income. A key question, then, is whether improvements in educational outcomes can reduce inequality. In a recent commentary for EdSource, we conclude that increases in college completion will increase wages, but will not significantly narrow the income gap. Here’s why:

College graduates earn a lot more than workers with less education. For example, workers with a bachelor’s degree earn 57 percent more on average than similar workers with only a high school diploma. But the range in wages for college graduates is much greater than the range for less educated workers. For example, among workers with a graduate degree, the top wage earners (those in the 75th percentile) earn $33 more per hour than those at the bottom of the wage distribution (25th percentile). Wage gaps are much lower among less educated workers – only $11 among workers with a high school diploma. Moreover, during the past three decades wage gaps have increased dramatically among college graduates. The large and growing variation in wages among college graduates leads to higher inequality.

This does not mean we should abandon policies to increase college enrollment and completion. Inequality at relatively high wages is better than low wages for everyone, and improvements in educational attainment will lead to higher incomes on average. But don’t expect to substantially reduce income inequality simply by increasing the rate of college graduation.

Boosting Transfers From Community College to CSU

To increase the number of college graduates in California, state policymakers are working to make it easier for community college students to transfer to four-year institutions, particularly the California State University (CSU) system. Legislation in 2010 required state community colleges to create a special degree that would ease the transition to CSU campuses.

Researchers Colleen Moore and Nancy Shulock provided a progress report on the implementation of this new degree at a PPIC briefing on Friday. These two researchers are from the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy at CSU Sacramento and are the authors of a new report for PPIC, From Community College to University: Expectations for California’s New Transfer Degrees.

They found that the new degrees have improved pathways for community college students. But many community colleges still offer transfer degrees in only a few majors, and some CSU campuses accommodate the degree in only some of their degree programs. In other words, the program still has a long way to go before it is fully implemented.

UC President Napolitano on Tuition, Online Learning, and the Role of the University

image

Janet Napolitano, the new president of the University of California and the former U.S. secretary for Homeland Security, said Monday that she told President Obama that the United States cannot thrive unless California thrives—and California cannot thrive unless the University of California thrives. Napolitano was responding to a question about why Californians should care about the public university system. Her comments were part of PPIC’s 2014 Speaker Series on California’s Future, which drew an online and in-person audience of nearly 500 to a conversation with PPIC President Mark Baldassare at the Sheraton Hotel in Sacramento. The wide-ranging discussion opened with a presentation from Hans Johnson, PPIC senior and Bren fellow, who provided context about the state’s need for educated workers.

The UC president, who also served as governor of Arizona, talked about tuition and budget issues, as well as online education, access for low-income students, and the lessons she’s learned since starting this job about six months ago. Napolitano said there was much the university is doing well: 42 percent of UC students are eligible for grants to low income students, 46 percent are the first generation in their families to go to college, and more than one-third are from families where English is not the primary language. She also said no public research university in the country is more efficient at helping students graduate within four years.

Still, she talked at length about the changes underway in funding for higher education and the need for new models. She emphasized that tuition will not increase for the 2014-15 school year and said that the university is dedicated to a tuition rate that is “as low and predictable as possible.” She also said she hoped to increase the university’s financial connection to philanthropy and the private sector. She said the state could do more and it should do more to support higher education.

Speaking about the future of higher education, Napolitano said online learning “is a tool in the tool box,” not a silver bullet. She said it is not necessarily cheaper than traditional classroom instruction and—despite some claims—no more effective at remedial education. She said, however, that it could get students access to classes not available on their campus.

Evaluating Student Success at the City College of San Francisco

In July 2013, the Accreditation Commission for Community and Junior Colleges reaffirmed its earlier decision to pull accreditation from the City College of San Francisco (CCSF). Citing a “lack of financial accountability as well as institutional deficiencies in the area of leadership and governance” as the “main obstacles to the college’s turnaround,” the commission allowed CCSF 12 months to prepare to cease operation. San Francisco’s city attorney and City College faculty have filed lawsuits against the commission, and in January a court granted an injunction placing the loss of accreditation on hold. The California Community College Chancellor’s Office, which oversees the state’s 72 community college districts, is working closely with City College to address the commission’s concerns and avoid the loss of accreditation. And the state legislature is considering a bill that would stabilize CCSF funding for the next two years. Meanwhile, students are responding to the controversy: City College reports a 16 percent decline in spring enrollment in 2014 compared to 2013.

The fight over CCSF’s accreditation is focused on a number of issues and concerns. But it raises important questions about how colleges should be evaluated. Many states have begun funding higher education institutions based on performance, and California officials are discussing similar performance measures. Most would agree that student outcomes are an important measure of any college’s effectiveness. Of course, good student outcomes for a college might simply reflect the strength and preparation of incoming students.

Because the California Community College Chancellor’s Office does an excellent job of providing information on student success, we have a wealth of data to examine student outcomes at CCSF. By most measures, City College fares well relative to other community colleges in the state. The share of students who complete college by earning a degree or certificate, or by transferring to a four-year college, is higher at CCSF than in the rest of the state. This advantage holds even when we limit our analysis to students who are initially unprepared for college-level work, which suggests that it is not simply the mix of students drawn to City College that drives its outcomes. (Although it is possible that CCSF’s unprepared students are closer to college level than unprepared students at other colleges.)

Of particular interest is how effectively a community college prepares students for transfer to four-year colleges or universities—this is arguably the most important mission of community colleges. Among students defined by the chancellor’s office as intending to transfer, City College has a higher success rate than most other college districts, ranking 6th out of the state’s 72 community college districts and 4th among the state’s larger districts—those with at least 2,000 students intending to transfer. The other top districts are a who’s who of the state’s most highly regarded: Foothill-De Anza, South Orange County, San Diego, Pasadena, and Santa Monica. By this important measure, City College is in very good company.

On some outcomes, City College performs below average. For example, its success rates in math remediation are significantly lower than the state average, and the share of career technical, or vocational, students who earn a certificate is slightly lower than the state average. However, City College fares well in most other measures. For example, the share of students who successfully complete remediation in English is higher than the statewide average, as is the share of students who successfully complete ESL courses.

Student outcomes are not the only way to assess a college. But they are an important measure of success. CCSF has provided thousands of students with a pathway toward meeting educational and occupational goals. That is no small feat.