Skip to content

California Government Spending on Incarceration and Responding to Crime

State and County Governments Spend Over $20 Billion Annually on Incarceration & Responding to Crime

October 2016 | By Chris Hoene and Scott Graves

Download Full Fact Sheet

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Fact Sheet.

In recent years, California has made a series of criminal justice reforms aimed at reducing the number of people involved with state and county correctional systems, promoting rehabilitation, preventing crime, and spending limited tax dollars more wisely. For example, through the 2011 public safety “realignment,” California policymakers transferred responsibility and funding for many adults convicted of “lower-level” felonies from the state prison and parole systems to the counties. Since 2007, these criminal justice reforms have helped to reduce the number of state prisoners by more than one-quarter and the number of state parolees by nearly two-thirds. In contrast, the statewide county jail population has fluctuated since 2007. However, as of late 2015, county jails held only slightly more people than they did in September 2011 — the month before the state-to-county realignment took effect.

Despite these significant reforms, spending on incarceration and crime-related activities at the county and state levels remains high. As of 2014-15, California’s state and county governments spent $20.7 billion on incarceration and responding to crime, according to a Budget Center analysis of state data. Specifically:

  • Nearly three-quarters (73%) of this spending — $15.1 billion — was for incarceration of adults and juveniles at the state and county levels. At the state level, spending on incarceration ($10.8 billion) reflects state operations and related capital outlay for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). At the county level, spending on incarceration ($4.3 billion) includes adult and juvenile detention, jail facilities, and related capital outlay.
  • More than one-quarter (27%) of this spending — $5.6 billion — was for activities associated with responding to crime. At the state level, this spending ($1.4 billion) includes support for trial courts as reflected in the state budget along with related capital outlay. At the county level, this spending ($4.3 billion) reflects support for district attorney prosecution; probation; public defenders; certain trial court activities (expenditures not reflected in the state category); juvenile wards of the court; grand juries; and related capital outlay. County-level expenditures in this category exclude the cost of policing that is provided by county sheriff’s departments.
state-and-county-spending-incarceration-responding-crime-exceeded-20-billion-2014-15

Significantly reducing state and county spending on incarceration and responding to crime will require continued implementation of recent reforms and going beyond recent changes in criminal justice policy. For instance, Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced penalties for several nonviolent drug and property crimes, allows individuals who are serving felony sentences for Prop. 47-related crimes to petition the court for resentencing to a misdemeanor based on this new classification, possibly resulting in early release. State and local officials should ensure that everyone in prison or jail who qualifies for resentencing under Prop. 47 has a chance to petition the court, which would likely lead to further reductions in state and county incarceration levels.

Policy changes that go beyond recent reforms could include simplifying the state’s complex Penal Code in order to shorten prison sentences, providing state officials with new policy options for further reducing incarceration, and increasing the use of alternatives to incarceration at the county level, particularly for youth. Decreasing the costs of incarceration and responding to crime at both the state and county levels would free up revenues that could then be redirected to public services and systems that can help more Californians achieve economic opportunity and security and promote broadly shared prosperity.

This analysis is the first part of a multiphase effort to analyze state and county spending on incarceration and responding to crime. Future phases of this work will examine trends in spending over time and provide county-by-county information.

For more information about the methodology used to calculate the expenditures reported in this Fact Sheet, see the Technical Appendix.

California Budget
Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

For participants in the Women’s Policy Institute, a program of the Women’s Foundation of California, Kristin Schumacher discusses the importance of increasing access to affordable, high-quality child care and preschool.

California Budget
Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Endnotes are available in the PDF version of this Issue Brief. 

Proposition 30, approved by voters in 2012, provided critical revenues to California at a time when the state faced daunting budgetary challenges. Prop. 30’s tax rate increases are scheduled to fully expire at the end of 2018. Prop. 55, which will appear on the November 8, 2016 statewide ballot, would extend for 12 years the Prop. 30 tax rate increases that affect very-high-income Californians. Revenues generated by Prop. 55 – a projected $4 billion to $9 billion per year from 2019 through 2030 – would go to K-12 public schools, community colleges, health care for low-income Californians, the state’s rainy day fund, state debt payments, and other state services. This Issue Brief provides an overview of Prop. 55 and the policy issues it raises. The California Budget & Policy Center neither supports nor opposes Prop. 55.

What Would Proposition 55 Do?

Prop. 55, “The California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act of 2016,” would amend the California Constitution to (1) extend Prop. 30’s personal income tax provisions for 12 years beyond their scheduled expiration at the end of 2018 and (2) create a formula to provide additional funding for Medi-Cal from the revenues raised by the measure. Moreover, existing provisions of the state Constitution would require Prop. 55 revenues to go to K-12 public schools, community colleges, the state’s rainy day fund, and state debt payments. Specifically, Prop. 55 would:

  • Extend Prop. 30’s personal income tax rate increases on very-high-income Californians. Prop. 55 would extend – from 2019 through 2030 – personal income tax rates enacted by Prop. 30. Extending these rates would raise between $4 billion and $9 billion each year (in today’s dollars), according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). Prop. 55 would allow Prop. 30’s one-quarter cent increase in the state sales tax rate to expire at the end of 2016 as scheduled.
  • Create a new constitutional formula to increase funding for Medi-Cal, which provides health care services to Californians with low incomes. For each fiscal year from 2018-19 through 2030-31, the Governor’s Department of Finance would be required to estimate the amount of General Fund revenues – including those raised by Prop. 55 – that are needed to:
    • Meet the annual Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges.
    • Fund the cost of services that were authorized as of January 1, 2016 (excluding Prop. 98 spending), as adjusted for population changes, statutory cost-of-living increases, federal mandates, and other factors.

If any Prop. 55 revenues are estimated to remain after meeting these combined expenditures, Medi-Cal would receive 50 percent of the excess, up to a maximum of $2 billion in any fiscal year. Revenues allocated to Medi-Cal under this provision would have to add to – rather than replace – existing General Fund support for the program.

  • Increase funding for K-12 schools and community colleges as compared to current law. The vast majority of funding for California’s K-12 schools and community colleges is provided by the Prop. 98 minimum funding guarantee. This guarantee is based on varying economic and fiscal conditions, including state General Fund revenue collections. Other things being equal, General Fund revenues from 2018-19 to 2030-31 would be higher if voters approve Prop. 55 than if the measure is rejected. This is because Prop. 55 would extend income tax rate increases that otherwise would expire at the end of 2018 under the provisions of Prop. 30. By increasing General Fund revenues relative to current law – which assumes the expiration of Prop. 30’s income tax rates – Prop. 55 would boost the amount of Prop. 98 funding that K-12 schools and community colleges would otherwise be expected to receive during the period that Prop. 55 is in effect. About half of the revenue raised by Prop. 55 would go to K-14 education, according to the LAO.
  • Increase deposits into the state’s rainy day fund and repayments of state budgetary debt as compared to current law. Under Prop. 2, which voters approved in 2014, California is required to set aside a certain share of General Fund revenues each year in order to build the state’s rainy day fund (the Budget Stabilization Account) and pay down state budgetary debts, including unfunded state pension liabilities. Because Prop. 55 would increase General Fund revenues relative to current law – as explained above – the measure would result in larger debt payments and bigger deposits into the rainy day fund compared to what would be expected if voters rejected Prop 55. The LAO estimates that Prop. 55 would provide an additional $60 million to approximately $1.5 billion each year for Prop. 2 purposes.
  • Allow state policymakers to use any remaining revenues raised by Prop. 55 for any budget priorities. Prop. 55 revenues that remain after (1) meeting the constitutional spending obligations described above and (2) helping to maintain state services that were in place as of January 1, 2016 could be used for any public systems and services funded through the state budget. For example, these excess Prop. 55 revenues could be used to raise the number of subsidized child care slots, increase cash assistance for low-income seniors and people with disabilities, and boost state support for the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC).

Whose Taxes Would Proposition 55 Affect?

As noted above, Prop. 55 would extend the personal income tax rate increases of Prop. 30, but not the sales tax rate increase. Prop. 30’s income tax rate increases are aimed specifically at the highest-income households. Of the total dollar increase in income taxes brought about by Prop. 30, the top 1 percent of households pay 98.6 percent, and the next 4 percent of households pay the remaining 1.4 percent, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (Figure 1). Prop. 55’s income tax rate increases could be expected to have a similar effect.

prop-55-fig-1

Compared to those of Prop. 30, Prop. 55’s overall tax-rate changes would be even more progressive. This is because Prop. 55 would not extend Prop. 30’s quarter-cent sales tax increase, which has a disproportionate impact on households with lower incomes. Prop. 55 follows the equity principle of taxation, by which taxes are levied fairly, based on the ability to pay.

Currently, California’s lowest-income families pay the largest share of their incomes in state and local taxes, while the wealthiest, who substantially benefit from public investments and have the greatest ability to contribute, pay much smaller portions of their incomes in state and local taxes. In other words, California’s tax system as a whole is regressive, even with Prop. 30’s income tax increases on the wealthiest households. If voters reject Prop. 55, California’s tax system would become even more regressive because the highest-income households would contribute a smaller share of their income in taxes than if Prop. 55 were approved (Figure 2).

prop-55-fig-2

Furthermore, the top 1 percent of California households – those who would be most affected by Prop. 55’s tax rate increases – have seen their average income more than double since the late 1980s, after adjusting for inflation (Figure 3). In contrast, average inflation-adjusted incomes for the bottom 80 percent of California households have declined.

prop-55-fig-3

What Would Rejection of Proposition 55 Mean for Public Services?

If California voters do not approve Prop. 55, the personal income tax rate increases on very-high-income Californians enacted by Prop. 30 will expire at the end of 2018. The expiration of Prop. 30’s income tax rates would:

  • Result in a significant loss of General Fund revenues. Fiscal year 2018-19 would lose half a year of higher personal income tax revenues and 2019-20 would lose a full year of higher revenues – a projected $4.5 billion in 2018-19 and $7.7 billion in 2019-20, with annual revenue losses continuing thereafter (Figure 4).
  • Create a multi-billion dollar budget deficit that would likely result in cuts to state services. With the expiration of Prop. 30’s income tax rates, the loss of billions of dollars in General Fund revenues would lead to annual multi-billion dollar state budget deficits. Under such a scenario, state policymakers would likely need to reduce spending for critical services in order to help to help balance the budget.
  • Reduce the Prop. 98 funding guarantee for schools and community colleges. Changes in annual General Fund revenues tend to affect the Prop. 98 guarantee. If Prop. 30’s income tax rates are allowed to expire, the projected decline in annual General Fund revenue growth would reduce Prop. 98 funding for K-14 education compared to the funding that would be required if Prop. 30’s tax rates were extended. Specifically, the Prop. 98 funding level could fall by roughly $2 billion in 2018-19 and by roughly $4 billion in 2019-20 if voters reject Prop. 55.
  • Restrict the state’s ability to boost investments in a broad range of critical services and systems. These include:
    • The state’s child care and development system, which continues to provide tens of thousands fewer subsidized “slots” than in 2007-08, the year the Great Recession began.
    • The state’s higher education system – the CSU and UC – for which direct state General Fund support per student is down substantially since the early 2000s, after adjusting for inflation.
    • The CalWORKs welfare-to-work program, which provides a level of support that leaves families, including 1 million children, unable to afford even low-cost housing.
    • SSI/SSP cash assistance for seniors and people with disabilities, which leaves individuals living below the poverty line and struggling to afford housing, food, and other necessities.
  • Result in smaller deposits into the state’s rainy day fund and lower debt payments, leaving the state less prepared for the next economic downturn. Building up reserves and paying down budgetary debt gives state policymakers additional options – beyond spending cuts – for balancing the budget and maintaining services during an economic downturn. However, the expiration of Prop. 30’s income tax rates would reduce the amount of revenues that are available for deposit into the Budget Stabilization Account and to pay down budgetary debt. As a result, critical services would likely face larger cuts if a recession significantly reduced state revenues.

In summary, allowing Prop. 30’s income tax rate increases on very-high-income Californians to expire would eliminate billions of dollars from California’s revenue system. This would leave the state with less funding to invest in schools, community colleges, and other vital public services and systems as well as reduce the state’s ability to pay down debts and save for a rainy day.

prop-55-fig-4

Policy Issues Raised by Proposition 55

Prop. 55 raises key policy issues, including whether to add a new funding formula for Medi-Cal to the state Constitution and whether to use temporary revenues to support ongoing services.

Adding a New Funding Formula for Medi-Cal to the State Constitution Reflects “Ballot-Box Budgeting”

By creating a new constitutional spending requirement for Medi-Cal, Prop. 55 is an example of what is commonly called “ballot-box budgeting.” On the one hand, critics of ballot-box budgeting argue that the initiative process limits voters to an up-or-down choice in isolation from other potential uses of funds. They argue that earmarking the proceeds from a certain revenue source constrains the ability of the Governor and lawmakers to use the same source for other spending priorities, to make programmatic changes, or to modify spending in response to economic, budget, and demographic shifts.

On the other hand, proponents of initiative-based spending argue that the two-thirds vote requirement for legislative approval of tax increases makes it difficult, if not impossible, to raise revenues through the legislative process to support public services and systems. As a result, they maintain that it is appropriate to offer voters the ability to raise taxes to fund specific state budget priorities.

Proposition 55 Provides Temporary Funds for Ongoing Spending

Prop. 55 extends Prop. 30’s personal income tax rate increases through 2030, but does not make those higher rates permanent. In other words, the revenues raised by Prop. 55 would eventually disappear. Given the temporary nature of these revenues, relying on them to fund permanent, ongoing services – such as K-14 education and Medi-Cal – would mean that state policymakers (and possibly the voters) would again face the question of whether to extend these tax rates, make them permanent, or find a different source of funding. If such efforts failed, state budget shortfalls would likely emerge, meaning that state policymakers would face the prospect of reducing spending on vital public services and systems.

What Do Proponents Argue?

Proponents of Prop. 55, including the California State PTA, the California Teachers Association, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, argue that the measure will prevent “billions in budget cuts without raising taxes by ensuring the wealthiest Californians continue to pay their share.” They state that money from the measure “goes to local schools” with strict accountability requirements that “ensure funds designated for education go to classrooms,” and further that the measure “expands health care access for children.”

What Do Opponents Argue?

Opponents of Prop. 55, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the National Federation of Independent Business/California, and retired Superior Court Judge Quentin L. Kopp, argue that voters supported Prop. 30’s tax rate increases only “because we were promised they’d be temporary.” They assert that funding for schools and other requirements is adequate, and state that “we can’t trust the politicians and special interests.”

Conclusion

Prop. 55 would extend – from 2019 to 2030 – the personal income tax rate increases on very-high-income Californians that voters approved by passing Prop. 30 in 2012. Prop. 55 would not extend Prop. 30’s quarter-cent increase in the state sales tax rate, which would be allowed to expire at the end of 2016 as scheduled. Prop. 55 is projected to generate between $4 billion and $9 billion per year, a range that brackets the roughly $7 billion to $8 billion per year that Prop. 30 has raised to date. Prop. 55’s revenues would be used to meet various constitutional spending obligations, such as for K-14 education and for Medi-Cal, as well as to help maintain services that were in place as of January 1, 2016. After meeting these spending requirements, any Prop. 55 revenues that remained could be used for any budget priorities, including boosting working families’ access to subsidized child care, making higher education more affordable, and improving safety-net services for low-income families with children.

With Prop. 55, voters have a choice to maintain a level of funding that has allowed California to begin reinvesting in its schools and other public services after years of disinvestment during and following the Great Recession. Rejecting Prop. 55, and thus allowing Prop. 30’s income tax rate increases to expire at the end of 2018, would result in reduced state revenues, less funding for schools and community colleges, smaller deposits to the state’s rainy day fund, less repayment of budgetary debt, and – quite possibly –  cuts to vital public services and systems. Moreover, California’s state and local tax system would become even more regressive because the wealthiest households – primarily the top 1 percent – would receive a substantial tax cut and thereby contribute less toward strengthening services that can promote economic security and opportunity for all Californians.

California Budget
Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Approved by California voters in 2014, Proposition 47 reclassified several nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, with the result that state prison is generally no longer a sentencing option for these offenses. Instead, individuals convicted of a Prop. 47 offense serve their sentence in county jail and/or receive local probation. As a result, the reforms initiated by Prop. 47 are intertwined with local criminal justice funding and policy decisions.

Against this backdrop, the California Budget & Policy Center collaborated with Californians for Safety and Justice to create a guide to help local advocates promote criminal justice reforms through their own county’s budget process. In addition to explaining the basics of county budgeting, this guide provides a framework for investigating the impacts of Prop. 47 on county budgets. This framework highlights how recent criminal justice reforms — such as Prop. 47 — have affected county jails and probation departments and includes a series of questions that advocates can pose to county officials to help evaluate the impact of Prop. 47 at the local level.

Read the guide.

California Budget
Justice System

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Policy Insights, the Budget Center’s annual conference, is the premier event for advocates, policymakers, researchers, and other leaders working to improve the lives of low- and middle-income Californians.

The following is the agenda and schedule for Policy Insights 2016, which was held on March 9 at the Sacramento Convention Center. This page includes links to presentations from the conference sessions as noted.

AGENDA

8:30-8:50 Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00-9:15 Welcome

Introductory Remarks on Poverty, Economic Opportunity, and the Proposed 2016-17 Budget

  • Chris Hoene, Executive Director, California Budget & Policy Center

9:15-10:30 Morning Plenary

Strengthening the Foundations of Shared Prosperity, Part I: California Policymakers Reflect on Key Proposals

Four state leaders with deep Capitol experience discuss current policy proposals and other ideas for reducing poverty and increasing economic security in the Golden State.

  • Toni G. Atkins, Speaker Emeritus of the Assembly
  • John Chiang, California State Treasurer
  • Kevin de León, Senate President pro Tempore
  • Holly J. Mitchell, Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee #3 on Health & Human Services
  • Moderator: John Myers, Los Angeles Times

10:45-12:00 Morning Workshops (see “Workshops” below) 

12:15-1:45 Luncheon Plenary

Video: Preview of California Women’s Well-Being Index

Introductory Remarks

  • Paul Rosenstiel, Retired Managing Director, Public Finance Department, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and Board Chair, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Joseph N. Sanberg, Co-Founder and Chair, Board of Advisors, Aspiration

Strengthening the Foundations of Shared Prosperity, Part 2: Poverty and Place

Four policy experts discuss the connection between local community conditions and economic opportunity and what it could mean for public policy choices.

Keynote: Poverty and Place: The Role of Neighborhoods in Upward Income Mobility

  • Raj Chetty, Professor of Economics, Stanford University | View Slides

Panelists:

  • Judith Bell, Vice President of Programs, The San Francisco Foundation
  • Frank J. Mecca, Executive Director, County Welfare Directors Association of California and Board Member, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Ellen Wu, Executive Director, Urban Habitat and Board Member, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Moderator: Katie Orr, Sacramento Politics and Government Reporter, KQED Public Radio

2:00-3:15 Afternoon Workshops (see “Workshops” below)

3:30-4:45: Afternoon Plenary

Strengthening the Foundations of Shared Prosperity, Part 3: The Role of Tax Policy

Three of our state’s foremost thought leaders on tax policy and public finance discuss options for reform with a focus on the key considerations to use in evaluating emerging proposals.

  • Jennifer Ito, Project Manager, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, University of Southern California and Board Member, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Ana J. Matosantos, Financial and Budget Consultant, Former Director, Department of Finance, and Board Member, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Anthony Thigpenn, President, California Calls
  • Moderator: Chris Hoene, Executive Director, California Budget & Policy Center

4:45-6:00: Reception

Workshops

10:45-12:00 Morning Workshops

What’s at Stake? Key Legislative Staffers Discuss the 2016-17 Budget 

Improving economic conditions in recent years and rising state revenues present state policymakers with a range of options for reinvesting in California in 2016-17 and beyond. The Governor’s proposal continues to emphasize saving for a rainy day and includes plans for paying down debts, spending to improve state buildings and facilities, and reforming the state’s preschool and child care systems. Yet, the Governor’s proposed budget does not include a plan to tackle California’s biggest challenges: high levels of underemployment and poverty, widening income inequality, and a safety net severely weakened by years of funding cuts. Come hear senior legislative staffers discuss the central issues in this year’s budget debate and offer their perspectives on where the budget may be headed in the coming months and years.

  • Nicole Vazquez, Deputy Chief & Human Services Consultant, Assembly Budget Committee
  • Craig Cornett, Budget Director and Chief Fiscal Advisor, Office of Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León
  • Moderator: Steven Bliss, Director of Strategic Communications, California Budget & Policy Center

Promising Ways to Invest in Our Children’s Future

Strong revenue gains provide an opportunity to make investments that pave the way for more broadly shared economic growth. Research shows that investing in children, particularly early in their lives, can improve their life chances and allow them to more fully contribute to our economy and communities when they grow up. This workshop will look at three promising investments that research shows can expand opportunities for children and families and strengthen our state’s future: home visiting programs, which connect new mothers to professionals who provide coaching to improve maternal health, early learning, and parent-child interactions; other family-strengthening programs that provide support and coaching to new parents, such as Triple P; and innovative models that increase children’s access to oral health services and prevent problems that can interfere with their ability to learn and excel.

  • Sarah Crow, Vice President, Policy and Evaluation, The Opportunity Institute | View Slides
  • Jenny Kattlove, Senior Director, Programs, The Children’s Partnership | View Slides
  • Moira Kenney, Executive Director, First 5 Association of California | View Slides
  • Moderator: Alissa Anderson, Senior Policy Analyst, California Budget & Policy Center

The Push for Higher Wages in California: An Update on State and Local Minimum Wage Campaigns

This January, California’s statewide minimum wage rose to $10 an hour. However, this isn’t the end of the push for higher wages in the state, and 2016 promises to be a busy year for deliberations over minimum wage policies. On top of multiple efforts to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 an hour, cities across California also are debating raising their minimum wage. Join us leading experts provide an update on the minimum wage debate in terms of what we can expect to happen in the coming year, a perspective from small business, and how the minimum  wage interacts with other programs to lift people out of poverty. Presentations will be followed by a moderated discussion about the strengths and possible tradeoffs of a higher minimum wage in California.

  • Jessica Bartholow, Policy Advocate, Western Center on Law & Poverty
  • Mark Herbert, California Director, Small Business Majority | View Slides
  • Ken Jacobs, Chair, Labor Center, University of California, Berkeley | View Slides
  • Moderator: Chris Hoene, Executive Director, California Budget & Policy Center

California’s K-12 Teacher Shortage: Recent Research and Potential Solutions

Many California school districts are struggling to fill vacant teaching positions and the state ranks last in the nation in the number of K-12 students per teacher. Recent boosts in state funding have allowed many California schools districts to increase hiring at the same time that enrollment in the state’s teacher preparation programs is at its lowest point in more than 10 years.  Moreover, the aging of the state’s teaching workforce and high levels of attrition mean the prospect of filling open teaching positions may become more challenging. These challenges are likely to be even more difficult with regard to filling hard-to-staff positions, such as math, science, and special education. This workshop will include a review of recently published research on California’s emerging teacher shortage and potential policy solutions.

  • Lori Easterling, Manager of Legislative Relations, California Teachers Association (representing Eric C. Heins, CTA President)
  • Patrick M. Shields, Executive Director, Learning Policy Institute | View Slides
  • Moderator: Jonathan Kaplan, Senior Policy Analyst,  California Budget & Policy Center

Sentencing in California: Moving Toward a Smarter, More Cost-Effective Approach

California’s criminal justice system has undergone sweeping transformations over the past generation. Following the passage of “tough on crime” laws in the 1980s and 1990s, rates of incarceration soared, resulting in a 2009 federal court order to reduce overcrowding in state prisons. Since then, state policymakers and voters have adopted a series of policy changes intended to reduce state incarceration, invest in communities, and provide community-based alternatives to imprisonment. Despite these positive steps, California’s sentencing laws continue to overly rely on incarceration, contributing to ongoing prison overcrowding and persistently high state corrections spending. What additional changes are needed to significantly divest from incarceration as a sentencing tool? What are the opportunities for enacting further reforms – incremental or otherwise – in the near future, and how would the Governor’s proposed criminal justice ballot initiative figure in this? Moreover, how might San Francisco’s unique sentencing commission help inform efforts to improve sentencing policies at the state level? Join us as our expert panel weighs in on these questions.

  • Tara Regan Anderson, Policy & Grants Manager, San Francisco District Attorney’s Office
  • Hon. George Eskin, California Superior Court Judge (Ret.), County of Santa Barbara | Text of Remarks
  • Ignacio Hernández, Founder & President, Hernández Strategy Group
  • Moderator: Scott Graves, Director of Research, California Budget & Policy Center

2:00-3:15 Afternoon Workshops

Supporting California’s Early Learners: Strategically Investing in Children From Birth Through Kindergarten 

California supports the educational needs of early learners, children ages 0 to 5, in a variety of ways. California’s child care and development system helps prepare children from low- and moderate-income families for school and provides affordable care so parents can find jobs and remain employed. This is done through subsidized child care programs as well as the California State Preschool Program (CSPP). In addition, California’s Transitional Kindergarten (TK) program provides an additional year of kindergarten for certain four- and five-year-olds, regardless of family income. There are now a number of proposals at the state level that could affect the provision of services for California’s early learners, including a new early education block grant and the development of a plan to consolidate the provider payment system. In addition, the reauthorization of the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant could also affect children ages 0 to 5 throughout the state. This workshop will discuss the state’s investment in California’s early learners and the various proposals in play during the 2016-17 budget cycle.

  • Deborah Kong, President, Early Edge California | View Slides
  • Donna Sneeringer, Director of Government Relations, Child Care Resource Center
  • Dorie Staack, Director, Elementary Education and State and Federal Programs, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District | View Slides
  • Moderator: Kristin Schumacher, Policy Analyst, California Budget & Policy Center

Why Is Housing So Expensive in California and What Can Be Done About It?

Housing is more expensive on average in California than in every other state but Hawaii. The typical California household devotes more of its income to housing than does the typical household in the rest of the US, and housing consumes a particularly large part of low-income Californians’ budgets. Furthermore, access to housing in good neighborhoods is essential to key outcomes, from job opportunities to quality education and health. What is it about California that makes housing so expensive? What can be done to improve access to quality, affordable housing? In this workshop, you’ll hear leading experts discuss the underlying causes of California’s expensive housing, how limited access to affordable housing affects different segments of the population, and what policy solutions may exist to improve the situation.

  • Chris Benner, Executive Director, The Everett Program, University of California, Santa Cruz | View Slides
  • Jennifer Ito, Project Manager, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, University of Southern California and Board Member, California Budget & Policy Center | View Slides
  • Matt Schwartz, President and CEO, California Housing Partnership Corporation | View Slides
  • Moderator: William Chen, Policy Analyst, California Budget & Policy Center

Forging Pathways to Health Care Coverage for Undocumented Immigrants in California

Well over 2 million undocumented immigrants live in California, making significant contributions to our state. Yet, most of these residents cannot enroll in state-level public health care coverage. Undocumented adults generally are ineligible for “full-scope” Medi-Cal – California’s Medicaid program for low-income residents – although children without legal documentation will soon be eligible for such coverage due to a new state law. Moreover, federal law prevents undocumented immigrants from purchasing coverage through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace. In light of this policy landscape, many California counties have taken steps to expand health care options for undocumented residents, creating a patchwork of wide-ranging local policies. In what ways have counties strengthened their health care safety nets for undocumented immigrants? What are the possibilities for further expanding coverage options for undocumented immigrants at the state level, and to what extent would such changes boost immigrants’ access to affordable care? Get answers and hear up-to-the-minute insights from our expert panel.

  • Ronald Coleman, Government Affairs Manager, California Immigrant Policy Center | View Slides
  • Shannon McConville, Research Associate, Public Policy Institute of California | View Slides
  • Geoffrey Neill, Principal Policy and Fiscal Analyst, California State Association of Counties (representing Farrah McDaid Ting, CSAC Health and Human Services Legislative Representative)
  • Moderator: Scott Graves, Director of Research, California Budget & Policy Center

Making the Case for Boosting Revenues: Strategies for Messaging and Talking About Taxes

Ensuring that California has an economy that works for all means investing in the foundations of broadly shared prosperity, such as top-quality K-12 schools, a world-class system of higher education that is affordable to students and their families, subsidized child care that helps more families find and retain jobs, and other essential public services and systems. For California to make these investments over the long term, we’ll need to strengthen our tax system by boosting revenues in ways that are equitable and sustainable. Yet, efforts to raise new revenues typically run into a number of obstacles, such as longstanding myths about the economic risks of raising taxes and the basic challenge of communicating often complex tax proposals in ways that connect with audiences. Join us for a hands-on workshop that will discuss principles of effective messaging on taxes and revenues, common pitfalls to avoid, and specific ways to link tax debates to the issues you and your constituencies care about.

  • Steven Bliss, Director of Strategic Communications, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Aparna Shah, Executive Director, Mobilize the Immigrant Vote
    View Slides From Workshop

 

Thank You to Our Sponsors
HHH Health_Justice FINAL-01
chcf Color_Horizontal-01
sierra health

California Budget
Justice System

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

Policy Insights, the Budget Center’s annual conference, is the premier event for advocates, policymakers, researchers, and other leaders working to improve the lives of low- and middle-income Californians.

The following is the agenda and schedule for Policy Insights 2015, held on March 4 at the Sacramento Convention Center, along with presentations and handouts from the conference sessions.

View CalChannel’s video page from Policy Insights 2015

8:30-8:50 Registration and Continental Breakfast

9:00-9:15 Welcome
Chris Hoene, executive director, California Budget & Policy Center

9:15-10:30 Keynote
California Prospects, Act I: The Intersection of Analysis, New Media, and Public Policy
One of the nation’s leading policy wonks discusses how timely, accessible analysis and commentary can shape and advance public policy.

Speaker:
Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief, Vox.com
Moderator:
Steven Bliss, director, strategic communications, California Budget & Policy Center

10:45-12:00 Morning Workshops

  • Sentencing Reform in California: Work Left to Do
    Lenore Anderson, executive director, Californians for Safety and Justice
    Handout: CSJ Fact Sheet on Proposition 47
    Hadar Aviram, professor of law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law
    Tamisha Walker, founding member, Safe Return Project
    Moderator: Selena Teji, policy analyst, California Budget & Policy Center
  • What’s at Stake? Key Legislative Staffers Discuss the 2015-16 Budget
    Agnes Lee, health policy adviser, Office of Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins
    Seren M. Taylor, staff director, Senate Republican Fiscal Office
    Presentation: Budget Overview
    Nicole Vazquez, deputy chief consultant, Assembly Budget Committee
    Moderator: Scott Graves, director of research, California Budget & Policy Center
  • A New Federal Policy Landscape: What Republican Control of Congress Means for the Federal Budget – and What’s at Stake for California
    Ed Bolen, senior policy analyst, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Edwin Park, vice president for Health Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Presentation: The 2015 Federal Budget Landscape and the Threat to Key Low-Income Programs
    Moderator: Luke Reidenbach, policy analyst, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Revenue and Tax Policy: Weighing Options and Prospects for Reform
    Tim Gage, principal and co-founder, Blue Sky Consulting Group
    Lenny Goldberg, executive director, California Tax Reform Association
    Jean Ross, program officer, Ford Foundation and former executive director, California Budget & Policy Center
    Moderator: Chris Hoene, executive director, California Budget & Policy Center

12:15-1:45 Luncheon Plenary

Celebrating 20 Years of Analysis and Impact
Paul Rosenstiel, managing director, public finance department, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company and board chair, California Budget & Policy Center
Jean Ross, program officer, Ford Foundation and former executive director, California Budget & Policy Center

California Prospects, Act II: Big Challenges, Big Ideas
Three of our state’s foremost thought leaders and influencers discuss the opportunities and questions
presented by changes in the state’s demographics, economy, and social conditions.
Speakers:
Joe Mathews, California and innovation editor, Zócalo Public Square
Senator Holly J. Mitchell, chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 3 on Health and Human Services
Manuel Pastor, director, Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, University of Southern
California
Moderator:
Anthony York, president and publisher, Grizzly Bear Media and the Grizzly Bear Project

2:00-3:15 Afternoon Workshops

  • Poverty in California: Key Policymakers Discuss State Strategies to Address Poverty
    Speaker of the Assembly Toni G. Atkins
    Senator Mark Leno, chair, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
    Assemblymember Mark Stone, member, Assembly Committee on Human Services
    Erica Williams, assistant director of state fiscal research, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Moderator: Chris Hoene, executive director, California Budget & Policy Center
  • Finding the Right Balance: What Role Should the State Play in Improving Education for Disadvantaged Students?
    Brooks Allen, deputy policy Director and assistant legal counsel, State Board of Education
    Carolyn Chu, senior fiscal and policy analyst, Legislative Analyst’s Office
    Presentation: Review of California’s Local Control and Accountability Plans
    Samantha Tran, senior managing director, education policy, Children Now
    Moderator: Jonathan Kaplan, senior policy analyst, California Budget & Policy Center

3:15-4:30 Afternoon Plenary
California Prospects, Act III: Confronting Policy Choices That Will Define Our Future
Three leaders with deep Capitol experience will discuss the policy choices likely to define California’s
future and examine how the state can position itself for economic prosperity that is broadly shared.
Speakers:
Ana J. Matosantos, policy consultant and former director, Department of Finance
John A. Pérez, regent, University of California Board of Regents and Speaker emeritus, Assembly
Darrell Steinberg, chair, California Government Law and Policy Practice, Greenberg Traurig and former Senate President pro Tem
Moderator:
Ben Adler, Capitol bureau chief, Capital Public Radio

4:30-6:00 20th Anniversary Reception

California Budget
Justice System

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!

The California Budget Project’s “Looking Ahead: Everything You Wanted to Know About the State Budget and What to Expect in 2015”  included two sessions designed to help you get ready for the 2015 budget deliberations.

Part I (9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.): Dollars and Democracy: An Introduction to the State Budget Process

  • Scott Graves, Director of Research, California Budget Project

Part I was especially geared to those interested in learning about — or refreshing their knowledge of — the basics of the budget process.

Part II (11:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.): State Budget Preview: What to Expect in 2015

  • Ronald Coleman, government affairs manager, California Immigrant Policy Center
  • Surina Khan, chief executive officer, The Women’s Foundation of California
  • Nicole Vazquez, deputy chief & human services consultant, Assembly Budget Committee
  • Moderator: Chris Hoene, executive director, California Budget Project

This event was held Wednesday, December 10 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the Tsakopoulos Library Galleria, West Meeting Room, 828 I Street in Sacramento.

California Budget
Justice System

Stay in the know.

Join our email list!