Upload
joelle-gamble
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 California Publication
1/28
Featured Policy: Fixing Food Stamps in California
golden ideasfor a progressive california
Fall 2010
8/3/2019 California Publication
2/28
Ensuring Stable Revenues for CaliforniaIan Magruder, Diane Coppini and Ilana NewmanUniversity of California Berkeley
Fixing Food Stamps in CaliforniaRajiv NarayanUniversity of California Davis
A Comprehensive Plan for Healthcare Infrastructure in CaliforniasHeartland: Addressing Central Valley Healthcare Needs
Megha Mahida and Amreen RahmanUniversity of California Los Angeles
Mitigate Southern California Traffic: Coordination, Alternatives
and a Congestion Price System
Erika K. Solanki and Karl Taraporewalla
University of California Los Angeles
Fixing Nutritional Access in Under-Served Urban Centers
Torin Jones and Willis HonUniversity of California Berkeley
Introducing Competition into Californias Prison Systems
Brent GaisfordUniversity of California Los Angeles
Combating Student Homelessness: 24-Hour Peer-Run Services
Jenna Edzant, Joelle Gamble and Amreen RahmanUniversity of California Los Angeles
A Tax Revolution in CaliforniaKunitaka UenoUniversity of California San Diego
Implement Rehabilitation Programs to Reduce Prison OvercrowdingShah-Rukh Paracha
Message from the Editors
c
onten
ts
8/3/2019 California Publication
3/28
Ensuring Stable Revenues for California
Ian Magruder, Diane Coppini and Ilana Newman, University of California Berkeley
History
California, the Golden State, was once at the forefront of educa5on,innova5on, and technology. Not
only isCaliforniarich withdiversity andcrea5vity,butit
has also consistently been ranked as the fi>h or sixth
largest economy in the world. Up to 200, the state
expanded services and spent freely; however sincethe
energy crisis and the dot com bubble burst, California
hasbecomethestateofNO:nofundingforschools,no
funding for services, no funding for infrastructure.
RevenuesinCaliforniafluctuate,strainingthebudget.In
5mesof lowand immobileearnings, thestateis forced
tomakecuts. Incontrast,during 5mesof high revenue,
thestatespendsfreely.TorestoreCaliforniaasaleader,we must provide essen5al services for our residents
consistently.
In March of 2004, California voters approved
Proposi5on 8, establishing the Budget Stabiliza5on
Account (BSA).2 This proposi5on requires the State
Controllerto transfer3% ofthees5matedGeneralFund
revenues from the General Fund to the BSA. The
legislature may transfer amounts in excess of the
specified percentage to the BSA. In addi5on, the
Governor, byexecu5veorder, may suspend thetransfer
to the BSA. Subsequently, for the last two years, anymoney transferred into the BSA has been transferred
back into theGeneral Fund. TheBSA currently hasno
money. Californiahas another special fund, the Special
Fund for Economic Uncertain5es (SFEU). Currently, any
unexpected revenues the state receives are deposited
intotheSFEU.ItoperatesliketheBSAtransfermoneyin
from the general fund, or transfer money out to the
generalfund.
Policy Alternatives
Given that both of Californias rainy dayreservefunds, the SEFU and the BSA, are presently at
lowlevelsandunabletoservethestatewhenrevenues
decreasedrama5cally,reformis needed.Sincethe SEFU
is a smaller fund primarily used for any unexpected
revenues or expenses between budgets, this policy
proposal focuses on reforming the BSA, which has a
greater mandate to ensure the financial stability of
California. Thefollowing threerecommenda5ons would
strengthenandexpandtheabilityofthereservessothat
the reserves could provide funding for California whenthestatefacesbelowaveragerevenues.
Recommenda*on 1: Expandthe size of the rainy day
reservefund.
Increase the size of the Budget Stabiliza5on
Account(BSA)fromthe currentlevel,either %of state
revenues or $8 billion (whichever is higher) to 1% o
revenues.This increasewouldbring the full size of the
BSAtoanes5mated$13.8billioninthenextfiscalyear. 2
Onceit reachesthenew capacity, thelargerBSA would
give the legislature a larger fund of reserves to draw
fromincaseofnaturaldisastersordrama5cdecreasesin
revenueduringeconomicdownturns.
Recommenda*on2:Ensurethatfundscanberemoved
whennecessaryduringlowrevenueyearsandestablish
criteria for what circumstances warrant removal o
funds.
Passalawthatallowsthelegislaturetoremove
fundsfrom the BSA. Funds wouldbe removed only fo
emergencies such as fires, earthquakes, and othe
naturaldisasters orwhenstaterevenuesare nothigh
enoughtomatchstatespendinglevelsetinthepreviousyear, adjusted for popula5on and infla5on changes. In
ordertoprotectreservesfortheyearsinwhichthey are
mostneeded,BSAfundscouldnotbewithdrawnforany
otherpurposes.
Recommenda*on 3: Ensure that funds will be added
duringhighrevenueyears.
TheGovernorwillbeabletoonlystoptheBSAtransferin
yearswhenthestatedoesnothaveenoughrevenuesto
payforstatespendingequalto thepreviousyears leve
of spending,adjusted for popula5on and infla5on. Thislimita5on would ensure that the Governor does not
suspendtheannualtransferofGeneralFundmoneyinto
the BSA in 5mes when revenues outpace costs, fo
example during the 1990s economic boom, when
Californiahadexcesstaxrevenuethatcouldhaveeasily
beenshi>edintoarainingdayfund.3 Inshort,apor5on
of California revenuesshould be moved into a fund to
saveforfuture5mesofeconomicdownturn.
8/3/2019 California Publication
4/28
Outcomes & Conclusion
Theul5mateofgoalofthispolicyproposalisthe
stabiliza5on of Californias budget in order to prevent
regressive tax increases and dras5c cuts in funding for
state programs during periods of lowrevenue. The
targets of recent cuts in state funding have been
educa5on,healthcare,social services,and rehabilita5ve
andcorrec5onalfacili5es.Diminu5onoftheseprogramsnotonly compromises thequalityof life andwelfareof
vulnerable individuals, but is also a detriment to the
wellbeingandfutureprosperityofCaliforniaasawhole.
Educa*on:
The primary vic5ms of recent state budget
instabilityhavebeenstudents. Accordingtothe official
Legisla5ve Analyst Offices 200910 California Spending
Plan,thelargestsinglegroupofsolu5onsadoptedduring
the budget processtotaling $14. billionbrought
Proposi5on 98 spending for K14educa5on downto itsminimum guaranteed funding level under the State
Cons5tu5oninboth200809and200910.2
Increasesinclasssizes,cancelingofsummerand
a>erschool programs, and laying off teachers are
examples of the damages sustained by the state
legislatures misguided priori5za5on of funds. Recent
budget cuts to higher educa5on call into ques5on the
statescommitmenttoprovideitsresidentswithaccess
to a highquality, affordable college educa5on. In the
absence of funding, fewe r Cal ifornians have the
opportunitytoearnacollegedegreeatthestatespublicuniversi5es.Inthe future,thestate(andglobaleconomy)
willbeinshortsupplyofhighlyskilledworkers.
Ideally, the outcome o f the proposed budget
stabiliza5on policies will guarantee the intransience of
fundsforeduca5onbecauseitwillallowrevenuetobe
u5lizedforanaspectofthestateagendathattranscends
presentconcernsinprepara5onforthefuture.Research
bytheAmericanEduca5onalResearchAssocia5onshows
a correla5on with higher reading and math scores of
elementarystudentsinstateswithnewlyreformedfisca
discipline, accountability, and transparency policies
Preven5on of further budget cuts in educa5on would
b en efi t c ur re nt s tu de nt s a s w el l a s e mp lo ye es
experiencingfurloughsandlayoffs.
Services:
The sector of health and human services, an
essen5al resource for Californias most underservedci5zens, also has been a prominent vic5m of fisca
vola5lity.RecentlytheGovernorvetoed$80millionfrom
the 200910 appropria5on for Child Welfare Services
Program,thestatelegislaturecutfostercareprogramsby
tenpercent,andtheHealthyFamiliesProgramnowface
a $196 million state funding shorall for 200910.3 In
addi5on, General Fund support for community clinic
programshasbeencutby$3.1millionandpaymentto
Medicalpublicsafetynethospitalshasbeenreducedby
ten percent, according to research by the California
BudgetProject.4Alongsidethepreserva5onofcorporate
tax breaks,the con5nuedlackof budget stabiliza5on is
clearly unjust. Further undermining the states revenue
base will lead tofurthercutsthatplacetheyoung, the
sick, and the poor at the boom of Californias
priori5za5onhierarchy.
Programs:
Otherprogramsthathaverecentlyfacedfunding
cuts include correc5onal and rehabilita5ve facili5es
publicworksplans,andinfrastructuremaintenance.The
proposedpolicieswouldincreasethesizeoftheBudge
Stabiliza5on Account, which would result in prolongedtransfer money atthe annual 3%rate fromthe Genera
FundintotheBSA. Thispresentsthetradeoff ofshort
term setup costs with longterm benefits of fisca
stability.It willtake5me for theBSAtoreachexpanded
size,andthecostofreachingthetargetsizewillbeshort
term spending that is diverted into the BSA. However
when revenue is down in the future, cuts in crucia
programspreviouslydiscussedcanbeavoidedbytappin
into a strengthened and expanded Budget Stabiliza5on
Account.
SOURCES?!?
8/3/2019 California Publication
5/28
Fixing Food Stamps in California
Rajiv Narayan, University of California DavisIntroduction
Un5l recently known as the Food Stamp
Program,theSupplementalNutri5onAssistanceProgram
(SNAP)func5onsasasafetynetformillionsoffamilies.By supplemen5ng the income of their beneficiaries,
SNAP improves its par5cipants access to a healthy,
completediet.Na5onally,theprogramserves34million
peoplea month.3 millionCalifornianspar5cipateinthe
programeachmonth,though3millionmoreareeligible,
butnotpar5cipa5ng.2
This paper will consider the shoralls of the
Cal ifornian opera5on through an analysis of the
programs history, the programs characteris5cs in
California, and recent legisla5ve developments in the
State Assembly. It will then aggregate the key policypialls afflic5ng California, before finally appraising
poten5alcoursesofac5on.
History
The Supplemental Nutri5on Assistance Program
began as a series of itera5ons under the name Food
Stamps.The ini5alpurposeoftheprogramin1939was
to address what its first administrator, Milo Perkins,
iden5fiedasagreatgorgewithagriculturalsurpluseson
one side and underfed, unemployed urbanites on the
other.2 When the program ended four years later in
1943, it was becausethe condi5onsthatpredicatedits
needno longerexisted.Astheprogramfounditsorigins
inagriculture,ithasremainedundertheadministra5on
oftheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.
Theprogramreappearedalmosttwodecadeslater
withthe backingof severalprominentsenators.To fulfill
a campaign promise to Virginia, John F. Kennedys first
execu5ve order implemented a pilot version of the
program in 22 states. Themoremodern incarna5on of
theprogramwasrealizedwhenLyndonJohnsonworked
with Congress to formalize the law into permanent
stature in 1964. Notable provisions inserted at this
junc5on included the shared responsibil i5es for
administeringtheprogrambetweenthefederalandstate
governments.
Duetothegeographicexpansionof theprogram,
par5cipa5on rapidly increased from the late 1960s
through the 1970s.Where one million individuals used
FoodStampsin1966,theprogramsbenefitsreached1
million by October 1974. This tremendous expansion
createdcauseforaconcernthatcon5nuestoframethe
FoodStampsdebate:Howcanweexpandtheprogramthelpmore,whiles5llkeepingtheprogramaccountable?
The 1970s saw major legisla5ve updates to the
program; na5onal standardsfor eligibility requirements
were implemented, funding schemes were adjusted to
balancetheresponsibilitybetweenstatesandthefedera
government,andtheprogramwasexpandedtoaidever
state.In1977,theprogramwasoverhauledonceagainin
The Food Stamp Act, which included provisions to
expediteaccessand5ghtencontrolsonfraud.
While legisla5on in the early 1980s cut backbenefits and limited eligibility criteria, the midtolate
1980ssaw a mild expansion ofthe program toaddress
rising domes5c hunger. To enhance the efficiency and
effec5venessoftheprogram,ElectronicTransferBenefit
(EBT)beganin1988(theuse of EBT cardswasuniversa
acrossthecountryby2004).EBTeliminatedtheneedfor
coupons, allevia5ng the concerns of those who felt
s5gma5zedbytheirpar5cipa5onintheprogram.
A>er hing a peak of benefi5ng 28 million
individualsin1994,par5cipa5onbegantowanethrough
theendof thedecade.Whilepartof thisdeclinecanbeaributedto fallingunemployment,muchof ithasgone
unexplained. One factor to consider is 1996 Welfare
Reform, which brought cuts and limita5ons to the
program by removing certain popula5on subgroups
(adults without dependents and legal immigrants) from
thoseabletobenefitfullyfromthealloedaid.However
the1997BalancedBudgetActandthe1998Agricultura
Research,Educa5on,andExtension Actadjustedcertain
provisions to restore some of the c ut aid and
marginalizedgroups.
Aspar5cipa5onfellto17.2millionbyFY2000,theUSDA refocused on facilita5ng access to the program
Themajorpieceoflegisla5onintheearly2000sforFood
Stampswasthe2002FarmBill(FoodSecurityandRura
Investment Act of 2002). It restored several eligibility
criteria, provided incen5ves for states with low erro
counts in enrollment (and disincen5ves for states with
repeatedly high error counts), awarded performance
basedgrantstowelladministeredprograms,andoffered
8/3/2019 California Publication
6/28
means by which states could simplify program access,
administra5on,andrepor5ng.
Figuresbegantoimprovesoontherea>er.By2006,
par5cipa5on reached 26 million. Payment accuracy
increasedfrom34percentinFY2000to94.12percentin
FY2004.Owingtomarkedachievementsinaccuracy,the
USDAawarded24statesatotalof$48millioninFY200.
Since the beginning of the decade, 49 states have
adopted a simplified repor5ng system (with California
le>over).
Asnondisaster par5cipa5onreachedan all5me
high of 29 million peopleper month in 2008, program
accuracy con5nued to improve. The 2008 Farm Bill
commied $ 10 billion to t he program over t he
subsequent 10 years. To keep with the 5de of other
states, theUSDA changed thenameof theprogramto
fight s5gma. It is now formally known as the
SupplementalNutri5onAssistanceProgram.
SNAP in California
The California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) manages the program statewide. Benefits are
accorded to households,
whichalsodoubleasthe
m a in e li g ib il i ty u ni t .
H o u s e h o l d s , n o t
i n d i v id u a l s , r e c e i ve
benefits.2 Therefore,only
when the households
gross income is lowerthantheeligibilitycriteria
w i l l t h e h o u se h o ld
receiveassistance.Within
the e l igibi l ity criteria
t h e r e a r e v a r i o u s
e x e m p 5 o n s a n d
deduc5ons. For example,
i f e ld er ly o r d is ab le d
pers on s resi de in t he
h ou se ho ld , t he g ro ss
i nc om e le vel m ay b e
higher. If eachindividuali n t he h ou se ho ld i s
receiving a recognized
form of assistance (such
a s C a l W O R K s ) , t h e
h o u s eh o l d b e c o m es
categorically eligible and
automa5cally qualifies
forbenefits.Unlesstheyareexempt,allbeneficiariesare
expectedtomeetaworkrequirement.
Although the CDSS manages the program
statewide, County Welfare Departments (CWDs) carry
muchof theresponsibility forthe administra5onof the
program,especially in determininghouseholdeligibility
TheUSDA financesallthe benefitsand halfof thetota
administra5oncostsbornebythestates.Theremainin
co st s a re di vi ded a mo ng t he stat e an d l oc a
governments,with thetotalsplit being 031 by the
federal,state,andlocalgovernments,respec5vely.InFY
20092010, the federalgovernment contributed $602.9
million to administra5on; the State contributed $418.4
million,andthecoun5es,$18.9million.3
WhileSNAPisafederalprogram,stateshavethe
authoritytocustomizetheirprogrambyuseofop5ons
affordedtothembyfederallegisla5on,mostnotablythe
2002 Farm Bill.4 It is through these op5ons that state
assemblies legislatethe administra5on of the program
The Food and Nutri5on Service (FNS) of the USDA
collects data on theop5ons exercised by each state. A
summaryofCaliforniasop5onsisshownbelow:
FromFoodStampsStateOp*onsReport
8/3/2019 California Publication
7/28
This paper will focus on these op5ons, as they
represent the most amendable aspects of SNAP in
California.Ahandfulofop5onsareofpar5cularinterest,
andshouldbeheldincomparisontootherstates. Inthe
next sec5on, each noted op5on is expanded upon.
Californiaisoneofonlytwostatesnottotakeadvantage
ofsimplifiedrepor5ng. Californiaisoneof16 statesnot
tooffer expanded categorical eligibility. 3 stateseither
have or are working on electronic applica5ons Californiaisnotoneofthem.
Recent Legislation in State Assembly
Of the six most recent legisla5ve aempts to
modify a SNAP op5on, all but two have failed. In the
20072008 session, Assemblyman Jim Beall Jr. was
successfulinpassingAB433,abillthatservedtochange
the name of the program to SNAP and expand
categorical eligibility to MediCal recipients.2 In the
2 0 08 20 0 9 s es si o n, A B 7 1 9 ( i nt ro d uc e d b y
Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal) extended benefits
toyouthexi5ngthefostercaresystemfor12months.3
Inthe20082009session,AB107(Beall),AB1198
(Swanson),AB643(Skinner)allfailed. 4Hadtheypassed,
they would have eliminated the statewide fingerprint
requirement, eliminated the life5me ban on convicted
drug felonsfromreceivingbenefits,and allowedcounty
welfare departments to transfer a recipients benefits
from onecounty to another (asopposed torequiringa
second applica5on process). Most recently, AB 1642
(Beall) has met its end in the 20092010 session. AB
1642 aempted to move California to a simplified
repor5ngsystem.
Key Policy Concerns
At the policy level, two major concerns
structure the need for reform. One problem afflic5ngnearlyeverystateistheprogram'spar5cipa5onrate,the
ability of SNAP to reach its
intended popula5on. An issue
e nd em ic t o C al ifo rn ia i s i ts
prohibi5vely high administra5ve
costs. The following sec5ons wil
considerthestructuralmo5va5on
a nd m an ife st a5 on o f t he se
concerns.
Performance as aFunction of Participation
Since the passage of the 1993
Government Performance and
Results Act, policymakers have
beencompilingdataonprogram
to gauge their effec5veness. The
S u p p l e m e n t a l N u t r i 5 o n
A s s is t an c e P r o gr a m ( S N AP
par5cipa5on rates command the
most aen5on from theUSDA in
this respect. Par5cipa5on rates track the reach of the
programby determiningwhatpropor5onof theeligible
popula5on par5cipates in the program. The USDA
predicatestheirgoalsforSNAPontheserates,whichare
packaged together and released annually. In 2010, fo
example,theintendedgoalistoreach68%oftheeligible
popula5oninthegivenfiscalyear.6InFY2007(thelates
year for which there is data), 66% of the eligible
popula5on par5cipated in the program7. This indicato
does not capture the wide varia5on between states
Indeed,17statesdisplay par5cipa5onratessignificantly
belowthena5onalaverage.8
OneofthesestatesisCalifornia,whichranks0
outof 1 when data includes theDistrict of Columbia
Amongtheeligiblepopula5on,only48%par5cipatedin
SNAP.Whilesomestateshavemadeprogressinraising
their par5cipa5on rate (Iowa, a noteworthy case
increasedtheirratefrom6%in200to70%in2006to
74%in2007.),Californiahasobservednolas5nggrowth.
FromReachingThoseinNeed,2009
8/3/2019 California Publication
8/28
Whencomparingpar5cipa5onamongtheworkingpoor,
Californiarankslastat33%in2007,againwithnolas5ng
growth.2 The disparity between California and the
na5onal averageis starker for theworking poor. While
thestate'spar5cipa5onrateisonly37.%lowerthanthe
na5onal average for overall eligibility, its par5cipa5on
rate among the working poor is 70% lower than the
na5onal average. Discussed further below is the
combina5on of ins5tu5onal obstacles that explain
limitedoutreachtothelaerpopula5onsubgroup.
The Consequences of Low Participation
CharacterizingtheperformanceofSNAPthrough
par5cipa5on rates does not speak to thefull extent of
California's significance as the nearworst ranking state.
Na5onally,SNAPbenefits34millionpeopleamonth.The
3millionCalifornianbeneficiariescompriseroughly 10%
ofthena5on'stotal.The3millionmoreCaliforniansthat
areeligible, but do notpar5cipate, areweighing down
thena5onalrate.Duetothesizeofthestate,anyhope
of improving the na5onal level is inherently 5ed to
California'sabilitytoimproveitsownpar5cipa5onrate.
A more pressing concern is the tremendous
opportunity cost California incurs when it fails to fully
enroll the eligible popula5on. Because benefits are
financed by federal dollars, increasing par5cipa5on is
tantamount to bringing infreeaid to thestate.Indeed,
recordsfromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofSocialServices
indicate that $469.8 million reached the 3 million
par5cipa5ng beneficiaries in February 2010.3 With 3
millionmoreeligiblenotpar5cipa5ng,thestateforegoes
$3.7 billion in federal benefits each year.4 When a
poten5al beneficiary does not receive the intended
federaldollars,notonly doesthatindividualstruggleto
putfoodonthetable,butthestatelosesaswell.Spent
aid generates revenue for every level of government.
Each year, es5mates California Food Policy Advocates,
the state budget loses a poten5al $121 million and
county budgets lose $32 million. With both state and
county administra5ons in a constant state of financial
stress,theselostfiguresarenottrivial.
Finally, the state losesasubstan5al amountof
economic ac5vity. To the benefit of local economic
ac5vity,SNAPbenefits(formerlyknownasFoodStamps)
mustbespentonfood.Becausethebenefitisamonthly
allowance, they cannot be saved or invested. As such,
every dollar of spent benefits generates $1.84 in
economicac5vity.6Forcomparison,notethateachdollar
offederals5mulusmoney generated$1.26of economic
ac5vity. Due to California's abysmal par5cipa5on rate
the state foregoes $6.9 billion in economic ac5vity
annually.
Barriers to Participation
TimeCommitment:
Foranapplicanttodeterminetheeligibilityand
applyforaid,heorshemustmakeatleastthreetripstothe appropriate local office. Trips include paperwork
filing,interviews,andeduca5onon theopera5onofthe
program.Studieshaveshownthatapplicantsspend,on
average, five hours applying for aid. Moreover, offices
that manage SNAP benefits have held tradi5onal
weekday hoursof opera5onsincethe beginningof the
program. For an applicant to come in requires taking
5meofffromwork5methatisusuallyuncompensated
Ifeligibleapplicantsareemployedduringthetradi5onal
workdayhourstomakeendsmeet,theyarelesslikelyto
ap ply for ben efi ts . Un der th ese rest raint s, it i
conceivablewhypar5cipa5onamongtheworkingpoorissubstan5allylowerthanoverallpar5cipa5on.
QuarterlyRepor*ng:
Toremainenrolledintheprogram,beneficiaries
must report their financial status on an interva
determined by the state. Prior to 2002, five years o
successive legisla5ve efforts aempted to loosen the
burden on monthly repor5ng. The argument then wa
that monthly repor5ng is both insignificant to the
program's efficient opera5on and 5meconsuming fo
thebeneficiary.Replacingmonthlyrepor5ng(asperbillsAB 444 ad AB 692) is the marginally less austere
requirement
FingerprintImaging:
California joins only three states (Arizona, New
York,andTexasbeingtheothers)inimposingaStatewide
Fingerprint Imaging System (SFIS) requirement on its
applicants. While the stated reason for implemen5ng
SFIS is to reduce fraud among beneficiaries, the State
Auditor found that the costs of the system might notcoveritspoten5albenefits.2SFIS,whichismaintainedin
astateruncomputerdatabase,coststhestate$8million
annually. To poten5al beneficiaries, this requirement is
problema5c on many levels. Not only is the eligible
applicantrequiredtocomeinforfingerprintimaging,bu
everyoneintheirhouseholdmustsubmittofingerprint
8/3/2019 California Publication
9/28
imaging aswell. Thes5gma of being fingerprintedthen
becomes a problem for both the applicant and
everybody else they live with, whether or not they
eventuallyreceivebenefits.
LackofOutreach:
The most recent survey data collected by
California Food Policy Advocates suggests that the
otherwise eligible candidates lack informa5on abouttheir status and theprogram itself. Whileoutreach is a
concern that ranks second to ins5tu5onal barriers, it
helps explain lackluster par5cipa5on rates. 71% of
eligiblepersonshavebeenshowntolacktheknowledge
requiredtoobtaintheirbenefits.2
Administering Benefits
Another source of program varia5on across
statescan beobserved inthe costof administra5on.As
states have control over their eligibility procedures (as
noted above) and the systema5c administra5on of theprogram, states control the costs of the program. The
costsofadministra5onareborneequallybytwopar5es,
the state and federal government. A state with large
expenses, then, is not only a burdenunto itself, but it
placesfiscalpressureonfederalsupportaswell.
Californiahasthelargestcaseload of any state,
sothecostsof opera5onarepredictably high.However,
the cost is notwell correlated to thestate popula5on.
When administra5ve costs are adjusted and measured
on a percase basis, California's costs are shown to be
149%higherthanthena5onalaverage.Whilethena5onspends,onaverage,$469 oneachpar5cipant,California
manages to spend $1169.2 Across thena5on, California
spends the most per case. Without popula5on to
accountforadrama5cdifferenceincosts,itiscrucialto
curbcostsandu5lizefundsbeer.
Barriers to Curbing Costs
AppraisalofCosts:
There is a "black box" on state SNAP
expenditures. While the state and federal governmentshare the administra5ve cost of the program, the
coun5es within the state are the agents who actually
administer theburden. As they incur thefirst roundof
costs,theysendreceiptstotheCaliforniaDepartmentof
Social Services, which then reimburses them for their
expenditures.Whenthesereceiptsaresentin,however,
nodetailisgivenastohowandwheretheadministra5on
costsaremanifest.BecauseCaliforniadoesnotknowthe
composi5on of its high administra5ve costs, it can do
liletoreformthesystempresently.
ExtraRequirements:
WhileitisnotwellknownwhyCaliforniaspends
an exorbitant amount per case, mul5ple analyst
s5pulatethatcostsrisefromadministering theancillary
requirementsthestateimposes.Notonlyisitdifficultfo
eligibleapplicants to comeintoa countywelfare officefor five hours over three visits, it is expensive fo
c as ew or ke rs t o h an dl e e ac h a dd i5 on al h ou r o
processing. Not only is it s5gma5zing for applicants to
submit to fingerprint imaging, SFIS costs the state a
substan5al amount of dollars to maintain each year
Q ua rt er ly R ep or 5n g i nc re as es t he b ur de n o n
beneficiaries, but it also imposes an extra filing and
processingrequirementoncountycaseworkers.
Recommendations
StandardizeFacetoFaceInterviewExemp*ons:
FederallawrequiresthatStateagenciesconductat
least one interview every 12 months with a SNAP
beneficiary. The interview requirement is among the
most involved aspects of the applica5on process, as i
c al ls f or a p ro lo ng ed p hy si ca l a pp ea ra nc e a nd
ques5oningperiod.Thereisprecedence forreform.The
State of California grants exemp5ons for facetoface
interviews, as per a waiver granted by the federa
government. However, these exemp5ons are only
granted in selected regions (as the chart above
indicates).AB231,whichfailedpassagein2004,providea model for realizing this recommenda5on. When the
requirement for a facetoface interview is waived, a
telephoneisconducted.
ImplementElectronicApplica*ons:
Thoughnotallaspectsof theapplica5on proces
can be streamlined electronically, most forms in the
programcanbefilledandrecordedelectronically.Thisis
beneficial for the administra5on of the program in a
leasttwoways.First,itcutsdownontheworkrequired
by the County Welfare Department (as they no longeneed to transcribe the informa5on onto a compute
record). Second, i t turns e ve ry interne tcapable
computerintoasitewhereaSNAPapplica5oncanbe
filled. Even if thehouseholddoes not haveaccess toa
computer or the Internet, every public library now
becomes an applica5on site. At least 11 other states
(such as NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Texas) have fully
implementedelectronicfilingusingeSignatures. 2
8/3/2019 California Publication
10/28
EliminateFingerprintImaging:
This requirement was introduced due to
concernsthatSNAPwasawardingbenefitstofraudulent
applicants.However,theBureauofStateAuditsfoundin
January2003thattheStatedidnotdeterminetheextent
of fraud before implemen5ng SFIS at a cost of $31
million. In2003,theDSShasrequestedinves5ga5onsof
6householdssuspectedofmul5pleaidfraudinagiven
month, compared to the 660,000 households receivingbenefits then.2 This means $8. million is being spent
every yearto eliminatefraud for lessthan onetenth of
onepercentof households receiving benefits.Since the
incep5onofSFIS,theDSShasneverreleasedtheamount
ofconfirmedcasesoffraud.
Transi*ontoSImplifiedRepor*ng:
California currently require households receiving
benefits to report their incomestatus every quarter. A
move to SimplifiedRepor5ng cutsdown theamount of
paperworkrequired to report income, and changes therequirementtosemiannualrepor5ng.Givenfederallaw,
California should not have the ability to demand
quarterly repor5ng. The State has only been able to
sustainthisac5vitythrougha seriesof waiversobtained
fromtheUSDA.Currently,80othergroupsinhavejoined
CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocatescalling fortheUSDAto
reject Californias most recent waiver.3 Before that,
nearly half a dozen pieces of legisla5on have been
introduce d to make the transi5on to Simplified
Repor5ng.
Mandate Comprehensive Budget Breakdowns forCoun*es:
Thefirststeptoreducing Californiasastronomical
administra5on costs is to break open the black box
that government analysts have alluded to. Instead of
requiring County Welfare Departments only to submit
receiptsof SNAP expendituresto theState,theyshould
be required to submit detailed budget breakdowns of
their ac5vity.Thisway,it becomeseasierfor analyststo
see exactly where exorbitant costs, if any, are coming
from. Un5l the n, SNAP administra5ve costs are
untouchabletoeveryaudi5ngpower.
Conclusion: The Risks to Reform
This paper has thus far covered the benefits
California can expect to incur from overhauling SNAP.
Every discussion of reform should also includetherisks
toreform.SNAPisnotimmunetothenega5veeffectsof
reform. The problems that result from specific policy
changescanbegroupedintotwogeneralareas:
Transi*onCosts:
Every element of reform wil l catalyze an
expensive transi5on. For example, an overhaul of the
SFIScouldcostatleast$20millionintheshortterm.This
isbecause SFIS workswithin a greatersystem of socia
programs. Removing it requires restructuring theopera5on of several social programs in the state
Similarly, implemen5ng electronic filing necessitates a
system for processing online applica5ons. Requiring
CWDstoreporttheirbudgetbreakdownsisalsolikelyto
run a cost, as it requires 5me and a system to repor
thesecosts,aswellas5metoanalyzethesecosts.
IncreasedFraud:
A high barriertoentry ismaintainedto prevent
individualsfromreceiving morefundsthanthey may be
eligiblefor. Reducing the barriers to entry will increaseprogram par5cipa5on, but it is l ikely to increase
fraudulent par5cipa5on as well. This is because more
applicantsandbeneficiariesarebothhardertotrackand
expensivetoaudit.
Ineithercase,thispapermakestheargumentthat
the benefits outweigh the costs. On the one hand
implemen5ng the recommenda5ons will help the
administra5on of the program run smoother. Even i
there are transi5onal costs, the medium and longrun
b u d g e t p r o j ec 5 o n s p r e d i c t t h at t h at t h e
recommenda5ons will reduce program costs. Were therecommenda5ons to further outreach, recall tha
expandedpar5cipa5onbringsinrevenuetotheStateas
well. Finally, thegreatestbenefitrests withthe people
Though policymakers should remain cognizant of the
benefitstostreamliningaprogram,it ismoreimportant
torememberthatabeerprogramhelpsmorefamilie
put food on the table. When every policy has been
implemented, this is the goal to which the program
strivestorealize.
8/3/2019 California Publication
11/28
Sources
Mark"OfficialVoterInforma5onGuide."CaliforniaSecretaryofState.hp://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/proposi5ons/
(accessedFeb11,2010).
Mark"CaliforniaForward2010FiscalReformPrincipals."CaliforniaForwardAc5onFund.hp://www.cafwdac5on.org/
projects/2010reformp(accessedFeb9,2010).Mark"OfficialVoterInforma5onGuide."CaliforniaSecretaryofState.hp://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/proposi5ons/
(accessedFeb11,2010).
Mark"CaliforniaForward2010FiscalReformPrincipals."CaliforniaForwardAc5onFund.hp://www.cafwdac5on.org/
projects/2010reformp(accessedFeb9,2010).
Mark"Governor'sBudget20102011."StateofCalifornia.8Jan2010.hp://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/
8000/9(accessedFeb17,2010).
MarkMcLean,Hilary."StateSchoolsChiefJackO'ConnellHighlightsImpactofBudgetCutstoEduca5on."California
DepartmentofEduca5onNewsRelease,3Jun2009,hp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asp.Mark"HumanServicesandChildcare."CaliforniaBudgetProject.16Nov2009.hp://www.cbp.org/publica5ons/
human_services_lan(accessedFeb13,2010).
MarkTaylor,Mac."200910CaliforniaSpendingPlan."California'sLegisla5veAnalyst'sOffice.1Oct2009.hp://
www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_pla(accessedFeb10,2010).
MarkAlexisFernandez,CaliforniaFoodStampsCharacteris4csReport,report(Oakland:CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates,
2010),pg.1.MarkUnitedStatesofAmerica.UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.AboutSNAP.hp://
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legisla5on/about.htm(accessedJune10,2010).MarkLegalServicesofNorthernCaliornifa,andCaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates."1.Summaryofbasiceligibility~
CaliforniaFoodStampGuide."CaliforniaFoodStampGuide.hp://www.foodstampguide.org/summaryofbasic
eligibility/(accessedJune10,2010).
MarkUnitedStatesofAmerica.CaliforniaStateLegislature.AssemblyCommieeonHumanServices.SupplementalNutri4onAssistanceProgram(SNAP).January2009,pg.2.MarkUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.FoodStampProgramStateOp4onsReport.By
ProgramDevelopmentDivision.Washington,D.C.,2006.Mark"CFPANutri5onLegisla5onUpdate.29.08."CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates.hp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/
.29.08.html(accessedJune10,2010).MarkCanalis,John."Billwouldaddfosterchildrentofoodstamprollsatage18."ContraCostaTimes,June,2009.MarkUnitedStatesofAmerica.CaliforniaStateLegislature.AssemblyCommieeonHumanServices.Supplemental
Nutri4onAssistanceProgram(SNAP).January2009,pg.3Mark"2010Legisla5veTrackingPage."CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates.hp://www.cfpa.net/2010leg/index.html
(accessedJune10,2010).MarkCunnyngham,KarenE.,andLauraA.Castner.ReachingThoseinNeed:StateSupplementalNutri4onAssistance
ProgramPar4cipa4onRatesin2007.Report.Washington,D.C.:UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture,2009,p.1.MarkCunnynghamandCastner,2009,p.1.MarkCunnynghamandCastner,2009,p.8.MarkCunnynghamandCastner,2009,p.8.MarkCaliforniaDepartmentofSocialServices.HealthandHumanServicesAgency.DataSystemsandSurveyDesign
Bureau.FoodStampProgramPar4cipa4onandBenefitIssuanceReport.2010
MarkUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.FoodStampProgramStateAc4vityReport.
Washington,D.C.,2006.
http://www.cfpa.net/2010leg/index.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asphttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/http://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cfpa.net/2010leg/index.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/2010leg/index.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.cfpa.net/Alerts/5.29.08.htmlhttp://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.foodstampguide.org/summary-of-basic-eligibility/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/about.htmhttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/spend_plan/spending_plahttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cbp.org/publications/human_services_lanhttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asphttp://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr09/yr09rel86.asphttp://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/8000/9http://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/http://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.cafwd-action.org/projects/2010-reform-phttp://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/8/3/2019 California Publication
12/28
MarkUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.FoodStampProgramStateOp4onsReport.By
ProgramDevelopmentDivision.Washington,D.C.,2006,p.22.MarkKruckenberg,Kami.FrequentlyAskedQues4ons:SaveMoney,FightHunger,ReduceGovernmentWaste:EndFinger
Imaging.Report.Oakland:CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates.Mark"Re:CaliforniaSNAPWaiverExten5onRequest."CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates,GeorgeManaloLeClairtoJaney
Thornton.July31,2009MarkShimada,Tia.LostDollars,EmptyPlates:TheImpactofFoodStampPar4cipa4ononState
andLocalEconomies.Report.Oakland:CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates,2009,p.3.MarkShimada.LostDollars,EmptyPlates,2009,p.3.MarkShimada.LostDollars,EmptyPlates,2009,p.2.MarkCaliforniaStateAuditor.BureauofStateAudits.StatewideFingerprintImagingSystem:TheStateMustWeighFactors
OtherThanNeedandCostEffec4venessWhenDeterminingFutureFundingfortheSystem.ByElaineM.Howle.
Sacramento,2003.MarkKnockingDownBarrierstoFoodAssistance:AShortProgressReportforCalifornia.Report.Oakland:CaliforniaFood
PolicyAdvocates,2004,p..MarkUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.FoodStampProgramStateAc4vityReport.
Washington,D.C.,2006.MarkUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture.FoodandNutri5onService.FoodStampProgramStateOp4onsReport.By
ProgramDevelopmentDivision.Washington,D.C.,2006,p.22.MarkKruckenberg,Kami.FrequentlyAskedQues4ons:SaveMoney,FightHunger,ReduceGovernmentWaste:EndFinger
Imaging.Report.Oakland:CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates.Mark"Re:CaliforniaSNAPWaiverExten5onRequest."CaliforniaFoodPolicyAdvocates,GeorgeManaloLeClairtoJaney
Thornton.July31,2009
8/3/2019 California Publication
13/28
A Comprehensive Plan for Health Care Infrastructure in Californias Heartland:Addressing the Health Care Needs of the Central Valley
Megha Mahida and Amreen Rahman, University of California Los Angeles
Restructuring safety net hospitals through the ins4tu4on of sustainably funded clinics, expansion of
employedcommunityhealthworkers, andsystemof telemedicine acomprehensivesystemwillbeinplaceto
accommodatethegrowingneedforprimary,preventa4vecareforruralunderprivilegedmembersoftheCentra
Valley.
History
S a f e t y n e t h e a l t h s y s t e m s p r o v i d e
comprehensivecoverageforuninsured,lowincome,and
disadvantaged popula5ons, thus their ins5tu5on in the
central valley can well address the needs of the
popula5on which is largely rural, uninsured, andhas a
higher rate of chronic diseases. Currently the health
systeminplacelargelyincludescommunityhospitalsand
clinics, and suffers from overcrowding in emergency
rooms as a result of the greatly uninsured popula5onwhich relies on the ER for primary care. This
characteris5c of the popula5on is also related to the
issueof therebeing ashortageofhealthcareworkersin
thecentralvalley region.Thenumberof currentfederal
healthcarecentersintheCentralValleyis206outof961
totalhealthcarecentersinCalifornia.MarkThisassessment
refersto theCentralValleyas a regionspanning 42,000
milesdownCalifornia,andisindica5veofvastsizeofthe
Central Valley and the fragmented system and strained
accesstohealthcarethathasresulted. MarkThesystemof
healthcare funding provided on a local, state, and
na5onal level in the Central Valley is inadequate in
providing coverage for the over 846,000 Central Valley
residentsandisthusunabletosustainproficientlevelsof
healthcare worke rs nee de d to ope rate e ffe c5ve
programsofpreventa5vecare.MarkThiscurrentsystemis
inefficient in its reliance on emergency room care to
addressthechronicillnessesandprimarycareneedsof
the rural and uninsured residentsof the Central Valley.
The lack of widely accessible primary care is not cost
effec5ve as more government funding goes into acute
care, involving the complica5ons that result when
preventableprimarycareillnessesgountreated.
Analysis
Inorderto adequately addressthehealthcare
crisisintheCentralValleyaboomupapproachmustbe
takeninordertorec5fyeverylevelofhealthcare.Thus
themainprovidersofhealthcaretoindividualswhoare
uninsured or insurred through MediCal are safetynet
providers. These include community health centers
clinics, public hospitals, private safety net designated
hospitals. Outof allthese providers theonly ins5tu5on
to receive funding from the federal level under the
auspices of being a "rural federally qualified clinic" are
community health centers. Thus many health care
systems bear dispropor5onate costs of the uninsured
Furthermore,individualswhoareinsuredthroughMedi
Calare funneledintothesesafetynet providers leading
tooverburdenedhospitalsandclinicsthatsimplydonot
have the resources to accommodate and adequatelytreat the large number of MediCal and uninsured
pa5ents. Many healthcare systemsin theCentralValley
are funded through Medicare.However, Medicarepays
hospitals in the Valley 67% of average na5ona
rates.MarkThislevelofpaymentisnotonlyinadequateto
meet the needs of the Central Valley and its large
uninsuredandunderservedpopula5onbutitalsoputsa
strain on hospitals to decrease the array of service
offered that target specifically lower income pa5ents
TheCentralValleyhasinfactoneofthelowestMedicare
feefor service reimbursementsin the country.Mark With
t he p op ul a5 on i n t he Va ll ey ex pec te d t o g rowsignificantly inthenextfew years, coupled witha large
agingpopula5on,thefragilestateofsafetynethospitals
is sure to be exacerbated in the coming years if no
ac5onsistaken.
Duetoseveral factorsincluding butnotlimited
to:alargepopula5on,andthenomadicnatureofsome
of the pa5ents, care at hospitals in the Central Valley
focusonacutecareandignorethe chronicdiseasesthat
exacerbate thehealth of individuals living in theValley
Oneindicatorofchronicdiseasesistherateofobesity.A
studybythe CentralValleyHealthPolicyIns5tutefound
that the percentage of overweight and obese adults
adolescents, and seniors were significantly higher than
the state average across the board.Mark Other chronic
diseases primarily diabetes and asthma, also affect a
large propor5on of Central Valley residents. The 200
California Health Interview Survey reported that the
Valleyhadhigherratesofindividualswithasthmagointo
an emergency room in the prior year compared to
8/3/2019 California Publication
14/28
allotherregionsinCalifornia. MarkInfactinananalysisof
indicatorsofhealthstatus:adultoverweightandobesity,
adult tobacco use,motor vehicledeaths,air quality, flu
shotsfor elders, andaccess toprenatalcare,theValley
scores far below the California average.Mark There are
morefactorsthatexacerbatehealthcareintheValley.By
inlargeis poorer than most other regions inthe state.
0%oftheregionhasincomesunder200%ofthefederal
povertyline,incontrasttothestateaverageof34%.Mark
The Valley also has higher unemployment rates than
twothirds ofoutsideCaliforniacoun5es. Also there has
recently been a large influx of new residents into the
Valley.Itisprojectedthatby200sixcoun5esfromthe
Central Valley will be among the fastest growing
countriesinCalifornia.Mark
Audience and Stakeholders
C ou nt y o ffic ia ls w ou ld b e i nt er es te d i nimplemen5ng a system of safety net hospitals which
would take advantage of already exis5ng infrastructureandwouldinvolveincreasingtheemploymentofprimary
care community health workers and tech companies.
Crea5ng a comprehensive safety net hospital system
focused on fulfilling the uninsured and underprivileged
community's basic medical needs would necessitate
morehealthcareworkersalongwithtelemedicine,which
would specifically target the popula5ons in this rural
community that would not have direct access to a
governmenthospital.It isto thefinancialbenefitof the
CaliforniaStateAssemblyalongwithCaliforniatax payers
to support the ins5tu5on of a system of safety net
hospitalsintheCentralValleyasthesystem'schangein
focus from providing acute care to primary care for
uninsured,vulnerableresidentsoftheregion,will inthe
longrunbemorecosteffec5veandsustainable.Perhaps,
most cri5cal is the increased access to healthcare for
thosewhocurrentlyfallintothegapsof federalfunding
programs, which in the Central Valley includes many
immigrantsandfarmworkers.Next Steps
In order to address the dispropor5onate fundsthat safety hospitals in the Central Valley receive in
propor5on to the levels of uninsured and Medical
pa5entstheguidelinesforfundingshouldbereformed.
Thereshouldbeanincreaseoffundstoattheveryleast
na5onalpercapitalevels. MarkInordertomakethislevel
offundingsustainable, anew methodologyought tobe
developedinordertoaccountforthediversegeography
oftheCentralValleywhichincludesamixof bothurban
and very rural areas.Mark Furthermore, in upcoming
alloca5on of the budget for healthcare, the growing
needs of the Central Valley in healthcare ought to
be highlighted. O>en the rural parts of California are
ig nored becau se t hey simp ly to not have t he
cons5tuency nor the lobbyist or interests groups to
further their cause. The Central Valley accounts for a
significantpropor5onofCalifornia'sGDP.IfCentralValleyresidentsarenotabletoaccessadequatehealthcare,the
produc5vity of workers will dras5cally decrease
especiallywhentakingintoaccountthechronicnatureo
many of theailmentsof theValley residents. Thus the
healthoftheregionisdirectlyrelatedtoeconomiccosts.
Preventa5vecaremustbeasmuchof apriority
as acutecare. Currently, the Valley's emergency room
are flooded with cases from individuals with chronic
diseases like asthma diabetes, whose condi5ons have
been exacerbated due to the lack of primary andpreventa5vecare.In order toreformthis, allsafety ne
providersoughttobefundedtofacilitatethisrefocusing
ofcaretothepreventa5veside.Specificallythesefunds
oughttobeallocatedinordertoincreaseoutreachand
e duca5onal programs that help manage chronic
diseases.Mark This type of outreach is par5cularly key
when taking into account the socioeconomic status o
thepa5entswhogotosafetynetclinics.
Anotherstepthatmustbetakentoaddressthe
health care situa5on in the Central Valley is the hugeshortageof health professionals. TheCentralValley has
thelowestnumberofprimarycareandspecialtydoctors
c om pa re d t o ev er y o th er re gi on i n t he s ta te
Furthermore, the region lacks mid level health care
providers as well, nurses, nurses assistants, physician
assistants, etc. The root cause of this shortage is a
coupling of the low reimbursement rates due to the
primarily uninsured popula5on, and thefactthatthese
p ro fe ss io na ls g en er al ly fi nd t he C en tr al Va ll ey
undesirable. Infactmanyresidentsthatare recruited todo their residencies in the Central Valley o>en arenot
interested in community health clinics and soon leave
the Valley a>er their residency ends.Mark In order to
tackletheshortageofhealthcareworkerstherehaveto
bebothlong term andshort term approaches. A short
termapproachtosolvethegapofhealthcareprovider
wouldbetointen5onallyelevatethestatusofnursesand
8/3/2019 California Publication
15/28
SOURCES?!?
physicians assistants to make them more autonomous,
whichwouldincreasethepa5entloadthatclinicscould
accommodate. Long term strategies would include
crea5ng incen5ves for doctors both primary and
specialty careto liveand prac5ce in the Central Valley.
Poten5al incen5ves that could facilitate an influx of
medicalprofessionalswould includesubsidizing thegap
in reimbursement.Mark Also, a large number of
residenciesintheCentralValley go toforeigneducateddoctors who o>en soon leave the Central Valley. Both
increasethenumberofresidencieswhilealsoincludinga
requirement for clinic hours and a number of yearsof
prac5cingintheCentralValleywouldatleastintheshort
term help meet the needs of theCentral Valley. Butin
orderfortruelongtermsustainablereten5onofmedical
professionals in the Central Valley, there must be a
medical school in order to act as a hub for providing
health care professionals interested in rural health and
prac5cing in the Valley. Thus UC Merced is the most
viableop5on for such a medical school. Andgiven the
number of Californian applicants that are turned awayfromschoolsfocusedonprimarycarenow(UCIrvine,UC
Davis), there is a huge demand for a new UC medical
school. Aside from health careprofessionals,with MD/
DO degrees, there is a huge need for public health
workers to facilitate community health educa5on and
outreachprograms.Inordertoincreasethepublichealth
professionalssimilar educa5onprograms andincen5ves
should be established to aract and train community
healthcareworkers.
Telehealthhasexpandedtoincludeawiderange
ofhealthcareservicesassimpleandstraighorwardas
planning appointments and refilling medica5ons to as
complex as diagnosisof re5nopathy. The Central Valley
serves to benefit immensely from a cohesive and
efficienttelehealthnetwork.Duethevastruralareasin
the Central Valley, o>en 5mes it is not logis5cally
possible for many residents to access clinics and
hospitalsthatarefarremovedfromtheirresidence,orto
follow up on visits in a 5mely fashion. Furthermore
currently the majority of the Central Valley hacomputers (two thirds) and approximately 60% have
access to the internet. In the past there have been
severalini5a5vestoestablishtelehealthprogramsinthe
Central Valley. California passed the Telemedicine
Development Act of 1996 which reimbursed the
establishmentoftelemedicineservices.Therehavebeen
a few successful telemedicine programs in the Centra
Valleythatarekeyindicatorsforthepoten5alsuccessof
a cohesive more up to date network. The Centra
California Teleophthalmology Network used high tech
cameras to send images of re5nas of pa5ents to
specialists in order to diagnose re5nopathy. The KingsView Behavioral Health centered in Fresno, provided
mentalhealthservicesto rural partsof theValley.Mark A
telehealthnetworkwouldnotbefiscallyirresponsibleas
the FCC currently in launching an ini5a5ve to increase
telehealth, it recently granted $14 million to 16
telehealth projects. TheFCC hasextendedthe deadline
toapplyforfundingforayear.Furthermore,theFCCis
increasing broadband access to rural parts of America
whichwouldsolveforthebarrierof slowinternetwhich
hadpreventedadop5onoftelehealthinthepast.Mark
8/3/2019 California Publication
16/28
Mitigate Southern California Traffic: Coordination, Alternativesand a Congestion Price System
Karl Taraporewalla and Erika K. Solanki, University of California Los AngelesIn order to adequately address the convoluted socioeconomic issue of trafficconges4on, policymakers mus
consider the unique geopoli4cal aspects of the greater Los Angeles area. By systema4cally addressing
coordina4on, enhancing public transporta4on alterna4ves, and gradually implemen4ng a conges4on pricing
systemonallSouthernCaliforniafreeways,policymakerswillimplementalongterm,comprehensivesolu4ontotrafficallevia4on.
In order to meet comprehensive transporta5on needs in Southern California, the state legislature should primarily
advocateforthreeini5a5vesinthefollowingorder:(1)increase theoverallcoordina5onofpublictransporta5onsystem
withintheregion;(2)increasethereachandfrequencyoftheMetrotransitbusesthatareoperatedbytheLosAngeles
County Metropolitan Transporta5on Authority to beer servelowerincomeresidents that are adversely affected by
inadequate public transporta5on systems; and (3) with overall enhanced public transporta5on alterna5ves available
implementaconges5onpricingstrategygraduallyonSouthernCaliforniafreewaystocurbtraffic.
The governor can ini5ate coordina5on efforts by establishing an interagency task force that fosterscoopera5on and
collabora5on among regional transit providers. Successful implementa5on of coordina5on mechanisms will increase
transporta5onavailabilityandaccesstojobs,enhancetransitsystemandservicequality,improvecosteffec5veness,andeliminateduplica5veefforts.
TheLos AngelesCountyMetropolitanTransporta5on Authority should increasethe reach andfrequencyofits limited
buslines,includingtheMetroRapidandMetroExpressservices.AlthoughthepassageofMeasureRandtheexpansion
of thesubway system intoWestLos Angeles willeventually providea public alterna5ve andmi5gateconges5on, the
comple5on of such large scale projects interrupt current transporta5on routes, involve longterm construc5on, and
require large funding grants. Theexpansion of busroutes andan increasein the number of 5meefficient buses in
opera5on are logis5cally feasible recommenda5ons that will provide immediate relief to commuters and rela5vely
minimalcosts.
It iscri5cal forpolicymakersto ins5tutecoordina5onmechanismsandexpandlimitedbus lines toenhanceaccess to
affordable and reliabletransporta5on alterna5ves before using conges5on pricing as a fair and equitablemethod opricingtraffic.Ascurrentlyproposed,thecarpoollanesalong14milesofthe10freewayand11milesofthe110freeway
willbeconvertedfromhighoccupancyvehicle(HOV)lanestohighoccupancytoll(HOT)lanes.Thosethatchoosetouse
theHOTlaneswillbesubjecttofeesof$0.2to$1.40permile.Eachdriverthatmightpoten5allyu5lizeHOTlanesmust
purchasea passand placeit intheir vehicle. Electronic monitoring devicesinstalledalong theHOT lanes willdetec
whenacarisu5lizingtheHOTlanes,iden5fyitspass,andchargethedriverpropor5onaltousage.
Key Facts
According to the RAND Corpora5on California
Traffic Conge s5on Sta5s5cs database, Los
A ng el es a re a c om mu te rs i n 2 00 6 s pe ntapproximately 39 hours wai5ng in congested
freeways. The same study found that annual
conges5oncostsincreasedfrom$1.69millionin
1982to$10.16millionin2006.
AlthoughtheU.S.DepartmentofTransporta5on
(DOT) largely funds state and local public
transporta5on services, various other federal
departmentsalsoprovidetransporta5onfunding
through 41 different programs, resul5ng in an
overall lack of coordina5on among regiona
public transit programs, and fragmented and
duplica5vetransporta5onservices.
Several studies suggest that welfare recipients
andlowincomeresidentsfaceseveralbarriersto
employment,withadequateandreliableacces
totransporta5onattheforefront.
According to a study sponsored by the Urban
M as s Tr an si t A dm in is tr a5 on , t h e c os t
8/3/2019 California Publication
17/28
effec5venessofabussystemtoprovideefficient
transit is far greater than heavy or light rail
transitsystemsinmediumandlowdensityci5es.
Talking Points
The Na5onal Governors Associa5on Center for
BestPrac5ceshasdubbedcoordina5onahighly
effec5ve tool that enhances transporta5onservicesatlileornoaddi5onalcosts.
The Metro Express offers reducedstop service
alongtheextensiveLosAngelesfreewaysystem.
Since many lowerincome residents live in
neighborhoods distant from e mployme nt
opportuni5es and without regular access to
reliable forms of transporta5on, an increase in
quality, reliability, access, and frequency of
MetroExpressbusesareespeciallynecessary.
London, Singapore, Stockholm, and New YorkCity have all successfully ins5tuted conges5on
pricing syste ms that have reduced traffic
conges5onandgeneratedsubstan5alrevenue.In
theseci5esthereisrela5vely elas5cdemandfor
transporta5on services since convenient and
affordable mass transit alterna5ves are already
in place, perming conges5on pricing as an
equitablemethodofpricingtraffic.
History
Residents in major ci5es are becomingincreasingly irritated by traffic and conges5on as daily
commutes increase. Nega5ve externali5es such as air
pollu5on aremoreapparent,andpublicalterna5vesare
being developedandimproved tooslowly. Accordingto
the RAND Corpora5on California Traffic Conges5on
Sta5s5cs database, since 1982 Southern California
freeways have consistently ranked first in annual
conges5oncosts.
Strong gubernatorial leadership is cri5cal toassis5ng par5cipants in overcoming barriers to achieve
coordina5on.Inordertogarnersupportforcoordina5on
efforts,Marylandofficialsorganizedaseriesofforumson
transporta5ontointroducetheconceptofcoordina5on,
view the proposed process, and facilitate discussion
among stakeholders. Furthermore, New Jerseys
Governor established an interagency task force, New
Jerseys Intergovernmental Transporta5on Work Group,
whichprovidesaroundtableplaormforstakeholdersto
cooperateandcollaborate.
Mul5plestudieshaveproventhatlimitedaccesto reliable transporta5on serves as a barrier to gaining
and maintaining employment. In response, in 1998
Congress authorized the Transporta5on Equity Act fo
the 21st Century (TEA21), a federal transporta5on
fundingbillthatpromoteslocaltransporta5onini5a5ves
which connect lowincome ci5zens to employment
Under TEA21, Congress approved the Job Access and
Re vers e C om mu te ( JA RC ) p ro gra m t o f und n ew
transporta5onservices andtheimprovement ofexis5ng
services.
Analysis
Sustainablecoordina5oniscri5caltoperpetuallyenhance transporta5on services. Transporta5on
coordina5on addresses mul5ple needs and goals with
l imited resources by consolida5ng service s and
effec5vely minimizing costs. The crea5on of formacoordina5on mechanisms will allow the Governor to
provide more effec5ve transporta5on solu5ons to
further mi5gate nega5ve externali5es from inadequate
publictransitsystems.Greatercoordina5oncoupledwit
an expansion of a reliable bussystem will increase the
abilityof lowerincomeresidentstoobtainandmaintain
employment. Improving the quality, reliability, access
and frequency of the Metro bus lines will provide an
arac5vealterna5vetodrivingprivatevehicles.
Next StepsTheabilityofofficialstopricetrafficasacommodityto
further mi5gate the nega5ve externali5es of traffic is
con5ngentupontheabilityofpolicymakerstoestablisha
welldeveloped,accessibleandaffordablealterna5ve.
Therearemanywaysthattheimplementa5ono
an interagency task force as well as the furthe
developmentofrapidbuslinescanbefundedtobemore
budgetneutraland lower theburdenon thetax payers
of Los Angeles. The Federal Transit Authority (FTA) has
developed a New Starts program used to help fundtransitprojectsthatmeetcertaincriteria.SincetheNew
Starts programis funded bythe FTA Sec5on 309grant
pro gram , ex pan sio n of t he rap id bu s li ne s a nd
implementa5on of the interagency task force can be
fundedinpartbythisfederalgrant.InJanuary2010the
NewStartsprogramshi>edtheirpolicytofundthose
8/3/2019 California Publication
18/28
projects that would reduce cost and 5me of daily
commutes while focuing on issues such as economic
development opportuni5es and the environment.
According to Sec5ons 309 and 318 of the program,
el igible projects include those that include the
purchasing of buses for fleet and service expansion
alongwithotherrelatedequipmentandfacili5es.
Theproposalsmadeinthispapercangoalong
way to mee5ng andimplemen5ngthe criteriathat are
necessary to receive funding from the New Start
program, and all in all will result in less of a financia
burden on the residents of Los Angeles, and a budget
neutralsolu5onforthestateofCalifornia.
Sources http://www.nga.org/cda/files/011503IMPROVINGTRANS.PDF http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314 Bania, N., Coulton, C., & Leete, L. (1999, November 6). Welfare reform and access to job opportunities in the
Cleveland http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123245949/abstract LATIMES1: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/09/local/me-tollway9 VTPI1: http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf http://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.html http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/19/local/me-traffic19 http://reason.org/news/show/the-facts-about-gridlock-in-so http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/la13.htm http://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr15.htm http://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.html http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=public+transit+buses&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
NEEDTOCONDENSEFORMATENDNOTES
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=public+transit+buses&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=public+transit+buses&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8http://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.htmlhttp://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.htmlhttp://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr15.htmhttp://www.laalmanac.com/transport/tr15.htmhttp://www.laalmanac.com/LA/la13.htmhttp://www.laalmanac.com/LA/la13.htmhttp://reason.org/news/show/the-facts-about-gridlock-in-sohttp://reason.org/news/show/the-facts-about-gridlock-in-sohttp://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/19/local/me-traffic19http://articles.latimes.com/2007/sep/19/local/me-traffic19http://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.htmlhttp://ca.rand.org/stats/community/trafficcongestion.htmlhttp://www.vtpi.org/london.pdfhttp://www.vtpi.org/london.pdfhttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/09/local/me-tollway9http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/09/local/me-tollway9http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123245949/abstracthttp://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123245949/abstracthttp://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/16/4/314http://www.nga.org/cda/files/011503IMPROVINGTRANS.PDFhttp://www.nga.org/cda/files/011503IMPROVINGTRANS.PDF8/3/2019 California Publication
19/28
Fixing Nutritional Access in Under-Served Urban Centers
Torin Jones and Willis Hon, University of California BerkeleyLocalgovernmentswithunderservedurbancenterscanu4lizeestablishedcommunitybasedorganiza4onsto
addressissuesoffoodsecurityandaccessibilitytonutri4on.
Key Facts
Chronically malnourished children lack the
nutrients needed for proper health and
development. WestOaklandhaslongbeenunderservedin
groceryretail. Thecommunity depends on themorethan
40 convenience stores to provide food,
resul5ng in malnutri5on and constant food
insecurity. These convenience stores provide poor
quality preprocessed foodstuffs for pricesthatare30%100%morethansupermarkets.
Poor nut ri 5o n and e a5ng h abi ts are
reinforced at a young stage leading to
lifelongnutri5onissues. TheCityofOaklandhastheabilitytotakean
ac5ve roletoreinforceproper ea5ng habits
andprovidefreshfoodforthisunderserved
community.
History
Childrencanbecome malnourishedfor reasonsthat have nothing to do with hunger. This malnutri5on
arises from a lack of food that provides the right
nutrients, vitamins, and minerals. Many innercity and
lowincome communi5es in California suffer from
m a ln u tr i 5 on a n d u n de r no u ri s hm e nt . H o we ve r,
communitybased solu5ons for addressing chronic
malnutri5on are extremely viable. The community of
WestOaklandintheCaliforniaBayAreaisanexampleof
an underserved community that could greatly benefit
from the impleme nta5on of a nutri5on program
involving the local government u5lizing and assis5ng
community based organiza5ons in providing food and
knowledge(Said2009).TheWestOaklandcommunityis
currentlyunderservedbyretailgrocerystores,leadingto
chronic malnutri5on and food insecurity among its
residents(People'sGroceryn.d.).
West Oakland can u5lize exis5ng organiza5ons
likeThePeoplesGroceryandMandelaFoodCoopera5ve
to organize food distribu5on and nutri5onal educa5on
fortheresidentsofWestOakland.The PeoplesGroceryrunsa communitysupportedagricultureprogram called
the Grub Box program (People's Grocery n.d.). The
programprovidesaffordableboxesof fresh,organicand
locallygrownproducewhichfeedsafamilyoffourfor
w ee k. S im il ar ly, M an de la F oo ds C oo pe ra 5v e i s
aemp5ng to provide a fullservice grocery store and
nutri5onal educa5on center in West Oakland. Both
organiza5onsaimtosa5sfyimmediatefreshfoodneeds,
providenutri5onal educa5on, andsolve unemploymen
in West Oakland (Mandela Foods n.d.). Nutri5on and
food security are underlying problems that the City o
Oakland must address if they want to begin to tackleother more prominent citywide issues. The city can
accomplishthiswithanac5vecampaignu5lizingthehelp
oftheexis5nglocalNGOs.
Analysis
Inrecognizingthecurrenteconomicsitua5ono
Californiaand local governments, u5lizing and assis5ng
community based organiza5ons in providing food and
knowledgeisthemostprac5calwaytoaddresstheissue
The City of Oakland could save both money and
manpower by working with exis5ng programs likePeoples Grocery and the Mandela Food Coopera5ve
which already have respectable reputa5ons and name
recogni5oninthelocalcommunity.Barriersthatremain
fortheseorganiza5onsincluderesidentapathyorsimply
notknowing they exist.Usingcity eventsthatshowcase
good ea5ng habits, city officials can guide residentsto
these organiza5onsand assist them with u5lizing thei
services.Thecitygovernmentcanalsou5lizecityowned
spacessuchparksandbuildingstofacilitatetheac5vi5es
ofthecommunitybasedorganiza5ons.
Organizing a new farmers market in WestOakland is another alterna5ve for the city to consider
butthecurrentfinancialrealityofthecitywouldhamper
its success. Due to transporta5on costs and the smal
volumeofproducesold,farmersmayhavetochargehigh
pricesinordertomeetopera5ngcosts.Forthemarketto
have a no5ceable benefit for lowincome families
organizersmustbeabletooffertheproduceatlowcost.
Local governments can provide coupons or direc
8/3/2019 California Publication
20/28
Local governments can provide coupons or direct
subsidiestocommunitymemberstoachievethis.Given
theeconomiccrunchmanylocalgovernmentsarefacing,
thecostofsubsidiesinaddi5ontothecostsofopera5ng
afarmersmarketmakestheop5onunfavorable.
In contrast, the Peoples Grocerys Grub Box program
providesaboxof1214poundsofproducethatcanfeed
a family of four for a week at a price of $12 a box(People'sGroceryn.d.).This box includesabout12 items
ofvegetablesandfruitstypicallygrownfromlocalfarms,
although they will occasionally offer free trade fruits
suchas bananasormangoes. Addi5onally, theMandela
Food Coopera5ves goal of providing an educa5ona
center represents another benefit of the program
because many Californians are unaware of the far
reaching benefits of nutri5onal ea5ng which extend
beyondimmediatehealth(People'sGroceryn.d.).
TheCityof Oaklandneedstou5lizethe establishedand
reputablecommunitybasedorganiza5onstoaddressthe
issues of malnutri5on in its long underserved WestOakland community. Working with these organiza5ons
provides an arac5ve and effec5ve way to tackle the
issueinlightofthecityscurrentfinancialsitua5on.
Sources
MandelaFoods.AboutMandelaFoods.hp://www.mandelafoods.com/html/about.html(accessedJanuary20,2010).
People'sGrocery.AboutWestOakland.hp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/ar5cle.php/westoakland(accessedJanuary20,
2010).
.FAQs.hp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/ar5cle.php/faqs(accessed201020January).
.GRUBBox.hp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/ar5cle.php/grubbox(accessed201020January).
Said,Carolyn."WestOaklandwelcomescoop'shealthyfoods."SanFranciscoChronicle,July11,2009.
FORMATENDNOTES
http://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/grubboxhttp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/grubboxhttp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/faqshttp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/faqshttp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/westoaklandhttp://www.peoplesgrocery.org/article.php/westoaklandhttp://www.mandelafoods.com/html/about.htmlhttp://www.mandelafoods.com/html/about.html8/3/2019 California Publication
21/28
Introducing Competition into Californias Prison Systems
Brent Gaisford, University of California Los Angeles
History
States across the country face rising costs for
theircorrec5onsandrehabilita5onefforts,mostnotablyinCalifornia,wheretheprisonsarecurrentlyopera5ngat
190% of capacity and the prison system absorbs more
than $8 billion of state money every year. The prison
systemsbudgethasswollenfrom3%ofthegeneralfund
30 years ago to 11% today2. However, the extremely
highcostsoftheprisonsystemarenotmakingforbeer
treatmentorrehabilita5on,asCaliforniafacesoneofthe
highest recidivism rates in the country, with 27.4% of
California's parolees reincarcerated, compared to the
na5onal average of 1. %3. California's prison
healthcaresystemwasruleduncons5tu5onallynegligent
by a panel of federal judges in 2006, and the state'sprison healthcare system has been under federal
receivership since then4. Thestate facescrisesof both
cost and quality of theprisonsystem, and a solu5on is
neededthatwilladdressbothproblems.
Many states have turned to private prisons as
the solu5on to their cost problems, and California is
likelytodothesame.However,thecurrentpaystructure
for companies who operate private prisons encourages
worse condi5onsfor the prisoners. They are paid on a
fixedyearlycontract regardlessof thecare theyprovide,
and thus these companies are driven to provide thecheapest facili5es and care possible for theinmates in
order to maximize their profits. Addi5onally, numerous
scholarlyar5cleshavebeenpublishedonthedifference
between public and private prisons, and they almost
invariably conclude that private prisons do not
outperform public prisons on quality of care or cost to
thestate.However,therearesomenotableexcep5ons
where private prisons have proven to be both less
expensiveandofhigherqualitythanpublicprisons 6.The
journal ar5cles which found private prisons to be
superior concludedthat these par5cularprivateprisons
were outperforming their counterparts because they
existed in a state of compe55on with other prisons,
whether public or private. Addi5onally, compe55on
withintheprisonsystemalsoencourageslessexpensive,
beercareatpublicprisons7.Thusprivateprisonscanbe
anintegralpartofastate'sprisonsystemwhentheyexist
inastateofcompe55on.
The cityofIndianapolis is an excellent example
ofthesuccessofcompe55onbetweenpublicandprivate
en55esforpubliccontractsandservices.UnderStephen
Goldsmith,MayorofIndianapolisfrom19922000,more
than 7 government services were opened up to
compe55on from the private sector8. (10) Over the
courseofthisperiod,"Thecitysbudgetfellby7percent
anditsworkforcenotincluding policeofficersandfire
fightersshrank bymorethan 40 percent.At thesame
5me,thecity investedmorethan$70millioninstreets
and parks, slightly reduced taxes, and maintained its
unemploymentratebelow3percent."9Notonlydidthe
cityseecostsfall,therewerealsoqualityincreaseswhich
a cc om pa ni ed t he i nt ro du c5 on o f c om pe 55 on
Furthermore, Indianapolis createda unique systemfo
rewarding its best performing public services. Thosepublic agencies that were able to complete contracts
belowtheirbidwererewardedwith2%ofthosesaving
intheformofemployeebonuses,providingyetanothe
incen5ve for public sector employees to increase thei
produc5vity. However, notall of Indianapolis'saempt
at introducing compe55on worked well, sugges5ng a
need for transparency in the bidding process for new
contractsandanoversightcommieeindependentfrom
both the public bidde rs and the private sector
Fortunately, the Office of the Inspector General in
Cal ifornia is alre ady ve ry independent from the
Department of Correc5ons, anda level playingfield fobidderscouldbe created from studyingcaseslikethose
in Indianapolis in order to bring California similar cost
savingsandqualityincreases.
Analysis
There are t wo ways t o introduce compe55on
rewarding the best prisons or punishing the worst
Rewardingthebestprisonsdoesnotcreateanyincen5ve
for the worst performing prisons to improve because
their ini5al huge disadvantage makes catching up with
best prisons prohibi5vely expensive and not worth the
riskof notwinning theprize.Alterna5vely,bypunishingtheworstperformingprisons,youcreateanincen5vefo
the worst facili5es, and thus those that most need
improvement. Using a system which punishes a poorly
performingprisonwithreducedfunding isa sureway to
make the prison worse, not beer, so a different
incen5ve system is required. If instead the worst
inten5onally
8/3/2019 California Publication
22/28
performing prisons are punished by turning over
opera5onal control to the lowest bidder at an open
auc5onfor that prison contract,whether thewinner is
the state or a private corpora5on, a system is created
withaverystrongincen5veforworstperformingprisons
togetoutoftheboomofthedistribu5on.Forapublic
prison, the warden and all the employeesare strongly
mo5vatedto improvecondi5ons tokeep their jobsandreputa5on untarnishe d, whereas private prison
companies would be mo5vated by the desire to keep
thatcontract,andhencetheirprofits.Inordertocreate
compe55on among prisons to decrease costs and
simultaneouslyincreasequality,allofthestate'sprisons
wouldberankedagainsteach otherbasedon cost and
quality.Then,thoseprisonsthatperformworstineither
category will see the right to operate their prison
auc5oned off to the lowest bidder. This will keep the
minimumquality of carewithintheprisonsystemrising
foryearstocomewithoutcostlyaddi5onal standardsor
inspec5ons,whilesimultaneouslydecreasingcoststothestate.
Next Steps
Crea5ng a comprehensive ra5ng system is the largest
obstacletothisprogramHowever,theCaliforniaOfficeo
the Inspector General is currently engaged in crea5ng
just such a ra5ng system. Addi5onal poli5cal pressure
fromtheGovernor'sofficeorthestatelegislaturewould
likely speed this process. Any idea which incorporatesany possibility of priva5zing prisons will no doubt face
s5ff opposi5on from the California Correc5onal Peace
Officers Associa5on (CCPOA), which is probably the
strongest union in the state. This proposi5on does
requirelegisla5onandhencethecoopera5onofboththe
state assembly and the senate. Fortunately, this is an
idea which can exist alongside all of the current
sugges5onsforeasingCalifornia'sprisonwoes,including
early releases, reduc5ons in parole, reduc5on o
mandatory sentencing laws, and increased use of low
costoutof stateprivateprisons.However,regardlesso
the progressor legisla5on made in any of these areas
introducing compe55on into the state's prison system
wills5llundoubtedlyresultinsignificantcostsavingsand
risingstandardsofcare.
Endnotes
1Zagger,Zach."Californiafilesnewplantoreduceprisonovercrowding."Jurist.UniversityofPisburghSchoolofLaw,13
Nov.2009.Web.1Feb.2010.
8/3/2019 California Publication
23/28
Combating Student Homelessness: 24-Hour Peer-Run Services
Jenna Edzant, Joelle Gamble and Amreen Rahman, University of California Los AngelesColleges/Universi4es should insurethatthere isat leastone secure,oncampus buildingopen2hours aday,
seven days a week, to provide homeless/needy students with shelter. Due to a lack of data on studen
homelessness,theUCRegentsshouldpriori4zetheissuebyini4a4ngacrosssystemsurveycollec4ngdatafrom
allUCcampuses.
Key Facts
Many signs can alert universi5es of homeless
students, including: a lack of con5nuity in
educa5on,poorhealthandhygiene,ormul5ple
bags/large quan55es of belongings to carry on
person.(Paik,Neil)
"Forthe20092010schoolyearandfutureyears.
The College Cost Reduc5on and Access Act of
2007 (P.L. 11084) expanded the defini5on of
in de pe nd en t s tu de nt t o i nc lu de : ( 1 )
unaccompanied homelessyouth; (2) youth who
areinfostercareatany5mea>ertheageof13
or older, and; (3) youth who are emancipated
m in ors o r a re in l ega l g ua rd ia ns hi ps a s
determined by an appropriate court in the
i nd iv id ua l' s s ta te o f r es id en ce ." ((Help5n
U n ac c om p an i ed H o me l es s Yo u th A c c es s
FinancialAid.)
In a survey study conducted bythe California
R es ea rc h B ur ea u o n h om el es s y ou th i n
California,24%ofthoseinterviewedatthe5me
were aending either high school or college.
(Bader,EleanorJ)
Talking Points
Dueto thelackof sta5s5cally basedstudieson
studenthomelessness,universi5esprimarilyrely
on anecdotal informa5on. In order to quan5fy
t he p ro bl em , u ni ve rs i5 es c an i ni 5a te a n
iden5fica5onprocessofatriskstudentsthrough
psychological services, financial aid, counseling
and other student services. Students may beconsidered homeless for several different
reasons:unexpectedevic5ons,familycrisesor a
lack of a nighme residence due to long
standingfinancialissues.(Bernstein,Nell)
Providing students in need with a dependable
nighme shelter, via a 24hour oncampus
loca5on, is the firststep universi5es can take
towards curbing the spread of homelessnessthroughouttheirstudentbodies.
History
With higher educa5on comes a considerable
financial burden as the price of aending college
increasesannually,andsome5mes,biannually.Overthe
pastfewyears,ac5onshavebeentakentoalleviatethe
strainthattui5onplacesonstudents.The2009American
OpportunityTax Creditaddedcoursematerials tothelist
ofqualifyingclaimsforparentsandstudents.(Paik,Neil)
The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA)
which was signed into law along with health care
legisla5on in early 2010, significantly increased the
amount of Pell Grant awards. SAFRA converts student
lending from taxpayer subsidized lenders to the more
costeffec5ve Direct Loan Program, which lends money
directly from the government. ("Student Aid and Fisca
ResponsibilityAct(updated3.18.10)).
Despite efforts to create affordable highe
educa5on,studentsares5llsufferingfromtheeffectso
thefinancialcrisis.In2010,CaliforniasGovernor,Arnold
Schwarzeneggerproposed to phase out the Cal Grant
program,whichmany Californiastudentshad relied on
to pay for school. Both the Ucs and CSUs have also
established fee increases while dras5cally cung
enrollment.(Bader,EleanorJ)
At UCLA, some s tudents r esort to s leeping in
libraries, showering in gym facili5es and carrying thei
personal belongs with them to class. These are not
isolated incidents. Fortunately, UCLA has a 24hou
campuslibrary.Otherwise,manystudentswouldhaveno
shelteratnight.
Analysis
The majority of college campuses across the
country feature at least one facility designed as a
"studentrecrea5onalcenter"thatprovidesservicessuch
as study rooms and access to computers, lounges
athle5cfacili5es,lockerrooms,programoffices,and
8/3/2019 California Publication
24/28
commonareas.Needystudentsfrequentsuchbuildings
forshelter, hygienic uses, orsimplya comfortableplace
to rest.(Bader, Eleanor J) These buildings become the
primary resource for a universitys homeless student
popula5on.
Next Steps
Schools should guarantee at least one secure
buildingopenatall5mestoprovideshelterforhomeless
students. This may beat a library or a student union.
Thesebuildingsshouldhaveopenandsecurerestrooms,
shower facili5es and washers and dryers. To minimize
costs,thesewashersand dryers could be renovated or
secondhandsetsfromotherreside ncehalls. Collec5ng
data on theseverity of student homelessnessis key to
implemen5ng this idea. The UC Regents can be the
dri