California Publication

8/3/2019 California Publication

1/28

Featured Policy: Fixing Food Stamps in California

golden ideasfor a progressive california

Fall 2010


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


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.


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?!?


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


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


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


8/28

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


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


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.


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/


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.PDF


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


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.html


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


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.


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


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

Documents

California Publication