Donate
PPIC Logo Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

Search Results

Filters Sort by:
Report

Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far

By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin

Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California’s 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts:

  • Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses.
  • The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs.
  • The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California.
  • Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose.
  • Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates.
  • State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future.

Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates.

Report

Higher Education in California: Performance Budgeting

By Hans Johnson, Patrick Murphy, Margaret Weston, Kevin Cook

As California begins to reinvest in public higher education after several years of budget cuts, it could opt to tie funding more closely with outcomes—for example, the number of students educated or degrees awarded. This approach, known as performance-based funding, has the potential to incentivize investment by the state’s higher education systems in areas that further state priorities. Drawing on California’s minimal experience with performance-based funding and the approaches other states have pursued, this report raises four important questions for the state to consider if it wants to link funding for higher education with outcomes without compromising on either quality or equity.

Report

Higher Education in California: Student Costs

By Jacob Jackson

Increases in tuition across California’s public four-year universities have heightened concerns about the affordability of a college education, especially for those with the lowest incomes. In-state full tuition at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) has risen more dramatically than at other public universities in other states over the past decade. During this same period, the federal, state, and institutional grant and scholarship programs that help make college affordable for students from lower- and middle-income families expanded. This helped lower-income families keep up with rising tuition, but the full price of college beyond tuition can still be a relatively large share of their income. Given the importance of higher education to California’s economic future, policymakers at the federal, state, and institutional levels need to make a continuing commitment to keep college affordable for students from low- and middle-income families. Also, given current tuition levels, it is more important than ever for the state to ensure that all students fill out financial aid forms and can easily access tools that can help them understand the financial aid packages they are offered.

Report

Higher Education in California: Institutional Costs

By Hans Johnson, Patrick Murphy, Margaret Weston, Kevin Cook

Over the past 20 years, in-state tuition at both the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) has more than tripled. These tuition increases have led many to believe that spending in the state’s public higher education systems is out of control. However, a closer look reveals that institutional expenditures in the two systems—including faculty salaries and benefits, the largest budget category—have not increased significantly. Our evaluation of both revenues and expenditures shows that recent tuition increases have been driven by dramatic reductions in state subsidies to UC and CSU. In the past, General Fund contributions covered the majority of educational costs. Today, students (often with help from federal, state, institutional, and private grants) pay most of these costs through tuition and associated fees. Better budget data could help policymakers monitor costs and align higher education funding with state goals. But it is clear that tuition at California’s public universities has risen much more rapidly than the cost of providing higher education.

Report

School Finance

By Margaret Weston

There is broad consensus that California's school finance system is inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex. In response to these critiques, this year Governor Jerry Brown proposed an overhaul of our school finance system. Also, two initiatives on the November ballot asked voters to increase education funding through tax increases: voters approved Proposition 30, which was integral to the governor's budget plan, and rejected Proposition 38, a citizens' initiative.

Despite the passage of Proposition 30, California faces many school finance challenges. This report provides an overview of the state's school finance system and outlines some longstanding school finance issues that may be in play next year.

Search results are limited to 100 items. Please use the Refine Results tool if you are not finding what you are looking for.