California restricts hiring after dual-paycheck revelations

Gov. Jerry Brown's administration has restricted state departments' hiring authority following revelations that hundreds of public employees were receiving pay for second state jobs in addition to their normal salaries.

Workers receiving more than one state paycheck, known in official parlance as "additional appointments," were found in a variety of departments and agencies, including the California Public Employees Retirement System and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and in several state hospitals.

The Brown administration did not ban the practice, but any such hire must now be approved by its Office of Human Resources.

"It appears that in some cases people were paid additionally for the job they were hired to do in the first place," said Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), who introduced a bill Wednesday to ban salaried state employees from holding more than one state job. "It's inappropriate at best and potentially abusive," he said.

Gorell said the proliferation of double paychecks highlights the need for more legislative oversight of the executive branch.

"It's clear that the governor and his administration don't fully understand what's happening in these agencies," he said.

Documents provided by the state controller's office show that 571 nonunion employees hold more than one position in various departments. The records do not show what those employees were paid.

The Sacramento Bee reported that dozens of state corrections officers received additional compensation beyond that of their regular jobs — some of which paid up to $20,000 per month. The paper also reported that the chief psychiatrist at Napa State Hospital, who receives an annual salary of more than $275,000, was receiving an additional $125 per hour for work as a staff psychiatrist.

"It's a scam," said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit advocacy agency. "Many people in all kinds of different jobs work for a set salary understanding that sometimes that means working long hours. Unfortunately, that's not always the culture of government."

A spokesman for the state's largest public employee union said the extra pay was for managers and other nonunion employees who are not eligible for overtime. Most unionized workers receive overtime if they put in extra hours.

A spokesman for CalPERS said it had allowed salaried workers to receive extra pay since June 2011 to help the agency launch and test a new technology project. Brad Pacheco said that using existing workers saved CalPERS an estimated $1.6 million that would have been spent to hire outside consultants and train new staff.

The human resources agency issued a statement saying that officials were "conducting a full review to determine whether there is any justification for continuing this practice."

via LA Times 

California's gun background-check system could be national model

Every day for the past 22 years, California's background checks have stopped about a dozen felons, mentally ill people and others from buying guns.

When prospective gun buyers stride into California gun stores such as Ron Kennedy's Canyon Sports in Martinez, they must swipe their driver's licenses or state IDs. That sets off a review process that runs their names not only through the same FBI criminal database other states use but also almost 20 other sources, from mental health records to DMV data. It's a check more rigorous than any other state's.

California is also one of only two states -- Rhode Island is the other -- requiring such checks not only for purchases from licensed gun dealers, but also for all purchases at gun shows, or even if you're just buying a gun from a neighbor.

For those reasons, California's universal background check system is being held up by gun control advocates as a model for the rest of the country. Yet in the emotionally charged national debate that has ensued since December's massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, whether implementing such a system nationwide would prevent similar tragedies and gun crimes remains a bitter point of contention.

Some statistics are clear: Only 1 percent of California's background checks lead to denials, so the system barely reduces the number of guns out there. But the national denial rate is 0.6 percent, so California's checks are obviously much better at preventing people who can't legally own guns from buying them.

"You have to assume that if you stop one person who would otherwise take that gun and kill people, it's been a success," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Napa, chairman of the House Democrats' gun violence task force.

But many gun-rights advocates fear universal background checks are nothing more than a prelude to universal registration and perhaps even confiscation.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the National Rifle Association, warned during a recent speech in Reno that President Barack Obama "wants to put every private, personal firearms transaction right under the thumb of the federal government."

At a Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, LaPierre sparred with Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, on the background check issue after LaPierre argued that more checks would simply force law-abiding citizens to pay more fees for the right to own a gun.

Other statistics can be used to support either side of the argument. Consider:

In 2011, California's rates of killings, robberies and assaults involving firearms were all higher than the national rates. But California had lower rates of armed robberies and armed assaults that year than Arizona or Nevada, which conduct less stringent background checks for gun store sales and no checks at all for gun show or private, person-to-person sales.

The Golden State definitely has a lower rate of gun deaths -- including accidents, suicides and homicides -- compared with the nation and many other states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California had 8.9 such deaths per 100,000 people from 1999 to 2010, ranking 33rd among states and the District of Columbia and falling under the 10.2 national rate. Nevada's gun death rate ranked sixth, at 15.9; Arizona's ranked seventh, at 15.3.

Yet it's hard to draw a direct link between background checks and rates of gun crime or gun deaths. Those rates might also be affected by other California gun laws, including a 10-day waiting period -- most states have none -- meant both to accommodate the expanded background checks and to let any hotheaded buyers cool off before taking possession of a gun. The state also has an assault weapons ban, handgun registration and other gun control measures that other states don't. And some criminologists argue that crime rates have more to do with a state's poverty, joblessness, education or other social factors than its gun control laws.

What does seem clear is that California's background check system functions well -- and could be replicated elsewhere.

Kennedy of Canyon Sports said the state's online system is "relatively flawless" and, in most cases, easy to use.

San Jose Gun Exchange owner Michael Fournier agreed. "I've got no problem with it," he said. "I couldn't sleep at night thinking someone got a gun who shouldn't own one."

Arizona-based gun show promoter Lori McMann said all her California shows have a "transfer dealer" present to handle the transactions, submit information to the state and hold onto the gun during the 10-day waiting period. In other states, she said, her company simply reminds sellers of their obligation to verbally ask buyers whether they're convicted felons or otherwise prohibited from owning a gun.

It might take hiring more federal and state workers to handle the increased workload, McMann said, but imposing a California-like system nationwide "is definitely doable."

But will it help?

"Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores" or at gun shows, Kennedy insisted. "They steal them or have them purchased for them by someone else."

Nor does it seem background checks -- at least, as they are run now in most of the nation -- stop horrific mass shootings.

The Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that Adam Lanza used to kill 20 kids and seven adults in Newtown was bought legally by his mother at a licensed gun store after she passed a background check.

James Holmes passed background checks with the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to buy the arsenal he carried in August into an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, where he killed 12 and wounded 58. Jared Lee Loughner also passed an NICS check to buy the gun he used to try to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., killing six people and wounding 12.

Both Holmes and Loughner had documented mental problems that were not recorded in the FBI's database, but it's not clear whether they would have been disclosed to California's system.

Some of Obama's recent executive actions and new bills introduced in Congress from both sides of the aisle aim to plug up those holes, pressing states and federal agencies to feed more and better-detailed information into the FBI system.

But the gun lobby opposes any effort to expand that system's use to cover gun shows or private, person-to-person sales -- representing roughly 40 percent of gun sales.

Chuck Michel, spokesman and attorney for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, agreed with LaPierre that "the biggest problem with background check systems is they typically incorporate registration of law-abiding firearm buyer and owners."

It's true that California does, unlike many states, retain information submitted for background checks for handgun purchases. And next year it will start retaining that information from long-gun purchases.

But Thompson said law-abiding people have nothing to worry about and that it all comes down to keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them: "If you don't do a check, I don't know how you can do that."

At Thompson's task force hearing last week, David Chipman, a former special agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, likened the need for universal background checks to the need for heightened air security after Sept. 11.

Said Chipman: "Imagine the frustration of TSA employees if they were told that 60 percent of those getting on a plane would get full security screening and then 40 percent would be allowed to walk right on the plane, and then buildings kept blowing up and we were all like, 'Well, how did that happen?'"

via Mercury News

On Behalf of CURB: Stop the Expansion of the California Institute for Men in Chino

Join us WEDNESDAY Jaunary 30th-3 pm. 

As you might have heard, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation is planning a controversial & massive expansion of the California Institute for Men in Chino. News stories report they intend to add as many as 3,000 more cells.

The city of Chino & CDCR are holding public meetings this Wednesday at 3:00 and again at 6:00 to discuss plans with the public. We at CURB hope that you can help us turn people out to those meetings who will voice opposition to expanding CIM. The meetings will be held at the Chaffey College Community Center, 5890 College Park, Chino.

Here are a few things you can help us with:

1) Meet us at Chuco’s Justice Center (1137 E. Redondo Blvd., on the border between South Central L.A. and Inglewood, one light west of Florence and Crenshaw | Inglewood CA 90302) at 1:30 pm so that we can carpool to the 3:00 pm meeting at Chaffey College Community Center. Please RSVP with Diana@curbprisonspending.org if you plan on attending. I will be emailing out talking points to all those interested in attending the meeting.

2) Forward this email to colleagues, students, friends and organizations who might be interested in stopping the growth of California's prisons.

3) Call 3-4 people and ask them to attend the meeting with you. Take a car full of people to the meeting.

4) Donate to CURB to help fund our work to shrink the number of Californians in prison.
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=62257

We will have talking points at the action, but please email or call me if you have any questions.

via Californians United for a Responsible Budget

Message from National Women's Law Center: Tax Family Credits

For millions of low- and middle- income Americans, tax season can mean extra money in their pockets. Claiming tax credits — including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), and Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) — can provide thousands of dollars for vulnerable women and families struggling to make ends meet. The EITC alone is worth up to $5,891. But women and their families can't claim these credits if they don't know about them. 

Families can start filing their 2012 as early as January 30, so there's no time to lose. Today, on EITC Awareness Day, help us spread the word to make sure families know about available tax credits. Our new and improved Tax Credits Outreach Resources make it easier than ever for advocates to spread the word about these credits. 

Our new resources include:

• State-specific outreach fliers in English and Spanish (and some in Vietnamese and Mandarin Chinese)
• Our Toolkit for Advocates, with a sample:
• Newsletter
• Letter to the Editor
• PSA script
• Press release
• Social Media tools
• List of what to bring to free tax preparation sites
• Fact sheets on tax credits for families and tax information for domestic violence advocates
• A link to sign up to become an NWLC Community Partner

If you work or volunteer with families that are likely eligible for tax credits and/or in a program that supports children and families, you can help get the word out! Simply hanging fliers in classrooms, hallways, and offices, sending them home with young children, or encouraging employers to send fliers enclosed with W-2 forms could make a difference for the families you work with. Be sure to let us know how you're spreading the word about tax credits, or if there's anything we can do to help, by emailing Amy Qualliotine at aqualliotine@nwlc.org. 

via National Women's Law Center 

California Sheds Prisoners but Grapples With Courts

Those 100-plus bunk beds are now gone. Prisoners are no longer using an open bathroom, where the smell was barely tolerable. The conditions are certainly not luxurious, but for the first time in recent memory all inmates are sleeping in cells that were designed to house them.

Nearly two years after the United States Supreme Court ruled that California’s prison system was so bad that it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, the changes are, in some ways, readily apparent. The state is still a long way from reducing the prison population by 30,000, as the court mandated.

Nonetheless, Gov. Jerry Brown declared this month that “the prison emergency is over in California,” arguing that the federal courts should relinquish control of the state prison system and that placing more demands on correctional facilities was simply “nit-picking.”

“At some point, the job’s done,” Mr. Brown said during a fiery news conference on Jan. 8 in Sacramento, the state capital, where he defended the prison system. California has spent billions of dollars to comply with federal demands, he said: “We can’t pour more and more dollars down the rathole of incarceration.”

But a court-appointed monitor said in papers filed last week that Mr. Brown’s demand to end oversight is “not only premature, but a needless distraction” that could affect care for mentally ill inmates. The monitor cited dozens of suicides and long periods of isolation instead of treatment.

The leaky toilets have been boarded up at the prison in this suburban city east of Los Angeles. Inmates waiting to see a doctor are placed in holding pens that once doubled as cells in the hallways. Prisoners are being let out into the yard more often, as officers are less concerned that their time out of cells will inevitably lead to tensions.

Critics, including the lawyers who sued the state on behalf of prisoners, say that many of the changes are nothing more than cosmetic and that the system still does not provide adequate care to physically or mentally ill inmates.

“We’re wasting a lot of money on nonsense,” Mr. Brown said. “Everybody wants to send people to prison. Nobody wants to pay for it.”

Many advocates, had hoped that the court rulings would prompt more changes in the state’s aggressive sentencing laws, and submitted papers showing that there would be no uptick in crime rates if more prisoners were released. Officials have argued that they have already released the lowest-level offenders and that further releases would threaten public safety, even if there were no increase in overall crime.

“The state refuses to engage with the fundamental problem, which is that we incarcerate far too many people for far too long,” said Allen Hopper, a policy director with theAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. “What has gotten us into this mess in the first place is the constant ratcheting up of sentencing laws.”

California is expected to spend $8.6 billion on prisons this year, the third-largest chunk of the state’s total budget, just behind public schools and health care.

It now has roughly 130,000 prisoners, with 119,000 housed in state prisons. That is a significant drop from 162,500 in 2006, the height of the crisis. But it is still nearly 10,000 more than what the courts said they would allow by a June 2013 deadline. Nearly 8,900 inmates are in out-of-state facilities. Most of the inmates shed by the state prisons were lower-level offenders who were sent to county jails.

via New York Times

Jerry Brown Creates California Surplus Miracle, But Can It Last?

Something close to a civic miracle seems to have occurred—at least on the surface.

California has long been synonymous with budget deficits so deep that it looked like the Golden State would inevitably be our Greece—beautiful and bankrupt.

But Gov. Jerry Brown announced that his state has suddenly projected a surplus of $851 million. Two years ago, when Brown came back into office, the state had a $25.4 billion deficit, a Sisyphean problem Governor Arnold struggled with unsuccessfully all last decade.

This reversal of fortune raises a lot of questions. What caused California’s budget turnaround? Is it sustainable? And finally, could there be a national lesson here as Washington tries to confront deficits and debt?

The top-line takeaway is that a balanced deficit-reduction approach seems to have worked in the Golden State. When he entered office in 2011, Brown proposed billion-dollar-plus cuts in welfare and Medi-Cal, as well as $500 billion from the UC system.

All told, his initial proposed budget was almost $20 billion less than Governor Schwarzenegger’s 2008–09 budget, which clocked in at $103 billion. Democrats and unions howled, and Brown’s ultimate budget was less austere than originally advertised, but deep cuts were enacted.

Crucially, Brown also took on the unpopular task of raising taxes—winning a 2012 ballot fight sonorously known as Proposition 30 and 39—that raised sales taxes and closed business tax loopholes. Next year, the combined new revenues are expected to exceed $5.8 billion.

The final factor is an improving economy—always the decisive X factor in deficit-reduction efforts. California’s economy is improving slowly, but the shift from the pit of the Great Recession moved the numbers in the right direction.

The result of increased tax revenues and spending cuts is that—at least for now—a projected deficit has been turned into a surplus.

This is good news. But not everyone is happy. And the numbers do sidestep a deeper problem.

Remember, deficits and debt are different things. Projected year-to-year deficits are comparatively easy to close, especially on the back of an improving economy. But out-of-control debt is ultimately what drags you down.

The Los Angeles Times offered a front-page reality check, under the headline “Debt a Cloud Over State’s Future,” pointing out the inconvenient fact that California “has accumulated a crushing load of debt for retiree pensions and healthcare now totaling more than taxpayers spend each year on all state programs combined.” Ouch.

Brown’s budget does begin to pay down the debt, but the outstanding amount dwarfs the pay-down. Of course, that hasn’t stopped liberal activists from demanding more money be spent immediately on social services, under the banner of “investment.”

Moreover, there are real questions about whether the increased tax burden—especially on the wealthy—will end up eroding the state’s tax base in the near future.

“There’s some doubt that high income taxpayers won’t either move to Nevada—or some other low or no-income tax state—or find other ways, such as delaying realization of cap gains, to avoid hefty new surtaxes—especially since their federal taxes are also increasing,” emails the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters. “California’s marginal income tax rate (federal plus state) is now highest in U.S. at highest level, about 52 percent.”

But Walters acknowledges that Brown’s budget miracle is more or less legitimate, at least for now. “It’s mostly new revenue from sales and income tax hike approved by voters in November with a dash of economic recovery and a smidgen of creative bookkeeping such as slowing down some debt repayment and assuming renewal of a tax on health care providers to trigger some federal aid,” Walters’ continues. “But overall it’s mostly the new taxes.”

Other Golden State observers take an even more skeptical view. “There is a reason Gov. Brown is known as Governor Moonbeam,” says KABC’s center-right John Phillips. “Structural deficits are everywhere, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office says there’s still a $1.9 billion budget deficit, and rich people can’t cross the state line fast enough—taking revenues down almost 11 percent since the passage of his Prop 30 tax hikes with them. On the plus side, hey, we’re not Detroit!”

The Rust Belt does have problems that make California’s cyclical deficits and deep legislative dysfunction seem comparatively easy to solve. But Jerry Brown deserves credit for pulling off at least short-term success in a state budget situation that had many experts calling impossible to solve. In the near term, the deficit turned surplus highlights the improving national economic environment.

It also provides a compelling object lesson for advocates of a “balanced approach” for reducing deficits, like President Obama & Co. Contrary to conservative talking points about how revenue is not a legitimate part of deficit-reduction solutions—instead, it’s all spending cuts all the time—California’s recent example shows that increased tax rates can help rapidly reduce deficits. Moreover, especially compared with much of Europe, the Obama administration’s decision not to simply pursue a path of deep austerity cuts seems to have been the wiser path, at least for now.

But conservatives could have the last laugh if the wealthiest Californians decide to flee the state for comparatively low-tax climes, like a sun-baked Gérard Depardieu.

Bottom line: This fight ain’t over. But at least for the moment, Jerry Brown’s balanced if painful plan to turn deep deficits into a modest surplus deserves study. It offers a rare glimpse of good news in the relentlessly bleak world of state budget. Whether it is sustainable remains to be seen.

via the Daily Beast

Statewide Day of Action, 2013 Budget Release

Take Action California had the privilege of participating in the Statewide Day of Action in San Bernardino, CA. The rally, "Reinvest in California Families, Seniors, and People with Disabilities," took place at the Rosa Parks State Bldg Gov't Center office. This event took place almost simultaneously in other California cities including San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Fresno.

We were thrilled to see everyone who participated, including collaborative partners Time for Change Foundation and California Partnership (organizer).

Below are some pictures of the event.

To learn more about the Statewide Day of Action, visit http://www.communitychange.org/

Calif. budget debate turns to spending, not cuts

Gov. Jerry Brown is preparing a spending plan as California faces its most optimistic financial outlook in years, yet the Democratic governor's intention to stick with a frugal fiscal agenda could put him on a collision course with Democratic lawmakers who seek to restore state services lost during the recession.

After years of deep spending cuts to education, health and social programs, Brown and California lawmakers will be debating this year how to spend the state's money rather than battling over what to cut.

Brown will release his budget proposal Thursday for the 2013-14 fiscal year, which begins July 1. He is expected to boost education funding by at least $2 billion, as he promised during his campaign for Proposition 30. The November initiative's sales and income tax increases are expected to generate $6 billion a year.

But he also said this week that "2013 is the year of fiscal discipline and living within our means, and I'm going to make sure that happens."

The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst has pegged the 2013-14 budget deficit at $1.9 billion, a vast turnaround from the double-digit deficits of the last several years. The Legislature is required by law to approve a balanced budget by June 15, which will still force lawmakers to cut some areas of spending to close the deficit.

Brown is likely to face some of his biggest challenges this year from fellow Democrats, who now hold two-thirds majorities in the Assembly and Senate and are eager to restore spending to a host of programs after years of cuts. Brown is more fiscally conservative than many Democratic lawmakers, favoring restoring school funding and building a robust rainy day fund over expanding services.

"People want to have more child care, they want to have more people locked up, they want to have more rehab, more, more, more. More judges, more courtrooms. We have to live within reasonable limits," Brown said in a Capitol news conference this week.

The legislative analyst's office has projected that the state will spend nearly $56 billion of a $94 billion general fund budget on education in the 2013-14 fiscal year, about $2 billion more than last year. That money comes partly through a voter-approved education funding guarantee that requires the state to spend more on schools when tax revenue rises.

"You can take this to the bank: We're not going to spend money that we can't afford to spend," Brown said. "We have to do more with less; that's just the way life is."

Like Brown, the analyst's office has also cautioned that the state's rosy forecast is dependent upon maintaining the strict spending limits of the past few years.

Still, the added revenue from the voter-approved tax increases allow the governor and lawmakers to begin to tinker with school funding formulas, which Brown is expected to address in his budget.

His administration advocates scrapping a series of dedicated funds aimed at addressing specific issues. Instead, he favors freeing school districts to spend that money in areas they deem most important.

Brown's proposed school formula also is intended to target spending to the neediest students, which is likely to draw opposition from parents and teachers in more prosperous areas.

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said he is open to Brown's school funding proposal. He said the goal is laudable, but there will be a lot of details to work out.

"How do you make sure, without micromanaging, that the kids that need help the most get the help that they need?" Steinberg said. "How do you make sure that the proven approaches to improving student achievement and helping kids graduate are funded?"

The legislative analyst projected last fall that the state's overall general fund spending would be about $94 billion, nearly 8 percent more than in 2012. California's general fund spending hit a high of $103 billion during the 2007-08 budget, the year the recession began, falling to a low of $87 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year.

Still, some expenses will grow in the short term, although the analyst said they are likely to be outpaced by higher revenue in the long term. For example, more Californians are expected to sign up for Medi-Cal, the state's health insurance program for the poor, as states prepare to implement the federal health care reform law.

via Fresno Bee

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/09/3127418/calif-budget-debate-turns-to-spending.html#storylink=cpy

Governor Brown will release state budget for Medical through the Affordable Care Act

On Thursday, January 10th, Governor Brown will release his state budget proposal and will announce how California will or will not expand Medical through the Affordable Care Act.

On January 10, 2013, health and human service advocates across the state will hold five rallies in support of a "California Budget for the 99%."

After the passage of Proposition 30, there still a 2 Billion Dollar Deficit. We need more revenue solutions so no cuts in health and human services and education are not on the chopping block.

These rallies - which will take place in Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, and San Francisco - will coincide with the anticipated release of the Governor's 2013 budget.

At the rallies, advocates will call for a budget that prioritizes the needs of the state's most vulnerable residents and voice their support for revenue solutions that will rebuild California's social safety net.

California schools flunk education group's ratings

California is sorely lacking when it comes to school reform, failing to adopt policies to limit teacher tenure and use student test scores in teacher evaluations, according to a rating of states issued Monday by a high-profile education advocacy group.

California received an overall grade of F, ranking 41st nationally, from StudentsFirst, a Sacramento-based group run by Michelle Rhee, the former schools chancellor in Washington, D.C., whose outspoken views have polarized those who share her focus on improving the nation's schools.

Her group's "report card" concentrates "singularly on the education policies in place in each of our states," Rhee said in a statement. "And when we look solely at policy, it's clear that we have a long way to go toward improving our education system in America."

Critics said the ratings say more about Rhee's views than about the state of the nation's schools.

Eleven states received failing grades. California received its only high mark for being the birthplace of "parent trigger" laws, which allow parents, by petition, to replace the staff of a low-performing school or turn over the campus to an independently operated charter.

California's schools would benefit from a statewide teacher and principal evaluation system that incorporates student achievement as a significant factor, the report said.

Such value-added formulas measure a teacher's effect on a student's learning through standardized test scores, taking into account a student's past performance and such factors as race or poverty. Some experts and teacher unions are skeptical of the method, and those critics have had allies in Gov. Jerry Brown and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson.

The California Department of Education had little use for Rhee's rating, with Deputy Supt. Richard Zeiger telling the New York Times that the F grade was a "badge of honor."

The department did not back down when the remark sparked some criticism.

"We're quite happy that California is moving in the opposite direction," said spokesman Paul Hefner. "We think that our schools are making incredible progress, given the enormous strains schools have been under in recent years."

Rhee's top-rated states are Louisiana and Florida; each earned a B-. No state earned an A.

Louisiana has been notable for converting many campuses to non-union charter schools. The state also allows lower-income students or those at poorly performing schools to receive public funds for private school. Florida requires 50% of a teacher's evaluation to be based on student performance. Parents are notified when children are placed with a teacher designated as unsatisfactory, the report said.

Rhee's system gives credit for aggressive state intervention as opposed to local control. Montana was among states receiving an F, in part for asserting "no authority to intervene when schools and districts are not meeting expectations."

The Rhee system gives no direct credit for actual student achievement or the level of spending on schools. Massachusetts, which is frequently lauded in both areas, received a D+ from Rhee's group.

Rhee rose to prominence as the head of schools in the District of Columbia, where she pressured educators to improve student achievement and fired many of them.

via LA Times

More than 1 in 5 California children live in poverty, study finds

As California diversifies, it will face serious economic struggles if it fails to pay attention to widespread childhood poverty, according to a report released Monday by the Center for the Next Generation. The center found that more than 1 in 5 children in the state are living in poverty.

The study, "Prosperity Threatened: Perspectives on Childhood Poverty in California," focuses on new U.S. Census Bureau figures, finding that childhood poverty is endemic among the state’s fastest-growing population -- Latinos -- with nearly 1 in 3 Latino children living at or below the poverty line.

Researchers contrasted the numbers with data on seniors, which showed fewer than 1 in 10 living in poverty.

“We can’t honestly separate our state’s economic future from current poverty rates among our kids,” said Ann O’Leary, vice president and director of the center, who co-wrote the report. “Our ability to thrive as the world’s ninth-largest economy depends on having an educated, healthy and stable next generation of workers.

"We’re headed in the opposite direction,” she added.

The study, which was funded by the center, details a trend of increased childhood poverty in California that accelerated during the recession. And while childhood poverty fell in five California counties between 2006 and 2011, 16 counties saw a reduction in senior poverty during the same period.

Los Angeles County, with more than 9.6 million people, is home to nearly 2.4 million children -- more than 17% of whom live in poverty, according to the study.

Of 51 counties studied, L.A. County ranked 22nd in terms of poverty rate.

In Orange County, slightly more than 16% of the children live at or below the poverty line, according to the study.

“We’ve taken steps to provide our seniors with some level of assurance that they’ll be cared for in their later years,” said O’Leary, adding that the study, funded by the center's general budget, began last fall. “California’s grandparents should ask why their grandkids don’t get the same treatment.” 

The report noted a correlation between education levels and childhood poverty rates; counties with the highest number of parents with college degrees also have the lowest levels of childhood poverty. The opposite also is true, the study found.

O'Leary and her coauthors suggest that state leaders make tackling childhood poverty a central goal of any economic recovery plan.

The center's mission is to influence the national debate over sustainable energy and improving opportunities for children and families.

via LA Times

California lawmaker's bill pushes college degree for $10,000

With the cost of going to college already more than $30,000 a year at many California campuses, is it possible to earn a bachelor's degree for just $10,000 – total?

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Marysville, hopes so.

Borrowing an idea being promoted by Republican governors in Texas and Florida, the GOP assemblyman has introduced a bill that would create a pilot program in California for what he's billing as a $10,000 bachelor's degree.

The degree would be available to students majoring in science, technology, engineering or math disciplines.

Assembly Bill 51 calls for closer coordination between high schools, community colleges and California State University campuses and targets three regions for the pilot program: Chico, Long Beach and Turlock.

Participating students would earn some college credit in high school through Advanced Placement classes and greater access to community college courses.

The bill calls for participating community college students to go to school full time.

Tuition at CSU right now is $5,472 a year. Books and campus fees cost another roughly $2,000 annually. A statement from Logue said his proposed $10,000 degree would include textbooks. It does not cover living expenses such as room and board.

"I hope my bill will be the beginning of a revolution to the very pressing issue of the costs of college that students face these days," Logue said in a statement. "We cannot expect today's students to have a higher standard of living than their parents if they continue to leave college saddled with so much debt."

Even on a topic as politically sympathetic as making college more affordable, it remains to be seen if the Republican's bill can make any headway in California's Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez has his own plan for lowering the cost of college – what he calls a "middle-class scholarship" program – and Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown has said he wants universities to increase affordability by doing more with online education.

CSU officials have not taken a position on the bill.

Logue's bill builds on efforts already under way in California to better streamline K-12 schools, community colleges and universities, said Judy Heiman, a higher education analyst with the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

"The bill also appears to draw on existing regional education partnerships, an approach we think makes a lot of sense," Heiman wrote in an email. "In addition, the incentives in the bill for full time attendance would support current efforts to improve graduation rates."

via The Sacramento Bee

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/01/03/5089069/california-lawmakers-bill-pushes.html#storylink=cpy

California Fracking Disclosure Rules Leave Some Environmentalists Unsatisfied

 Underneath much of Central and southern California sits the single largest deposit of shale oil in the United States, boasting a motherlode of some 15 billion barrels of oil.

While the Monterey Shale's unique geology has prevented energy companies from unleashing a new West Coast energy boom, California regulators have begun to take the first steps in regulating hydraulic fracturing (or "fracking"), a controversial practice decried by environmentalists and the most promising solution for retrieving said oil.

The process of injecting a mixture of water, sand and other chemicals into a well in order to stimulate the flow of oil or natural gas, fracking is especially helpful in accessing energy deposits in shale formations that would otherwise be out of reach using traditional methods.

Kassie Siegel of the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity, which is in the process of suing the state for doing what it calls an insufficient job of regulating fracking, argues that the practice has the potential to do irreparable harm to the environment. She notes that a quarter of all the chemicals used in fracking are known carcinogens, and some people living near fracked wells have reported health ailments like vomiting, nausea and seizures.

On the other hand, industry representatives have pointed to a recent year-long study conducted in Southern California's Ingleside Oil Field that found no negative health, air quality or seismic effects from the fracking occurring there. The study, paid for by Plains Exploration & Production Company as part of a lawsuit against the energy producer, has been criticized by environmentalists for not looking at the long-term heath effects of fracking.

Earlier this month, the California Department of Conservation's Department of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) released a preliminary set of regulatory guidelines for all fracking activities occurring in the state.

During a phone conference with members of the media last week, state regulators noted that many of the rules they're planning to put in place mandate practices already standard across the energy industry. However, one area headed for change is the requirement that companies disclose all the chemicals they use in fracking.

The new rules mandate that all chemicals used in the fracking process be disclosed within 60 days after the completion of fracking and that the state be notified 10 days before fracking occurs.

Presently, energy producers aren't required to tell anyone where or when they're using hydraulic fracturing, although many companies have started to do so on a voluntarily basis through industry-run site FracFocus.org after state regulators asked them to do so earlier this year. Under the new regulatory regime, reporting chemicals on FracFocus would become mandatory.

FracFocus now lists information for just over 600 fracked wells in California. According to Western States Petroleum Association Spokesman Tupper Hull, a recent survey found that of the 47,000 active wells, only 628 utilize hydraulic fracturing.

Some environmentalists have questioned the wisdom of relying on a private, industry-run website to host this information, especially when said site isn't required to comply with Freedom Of Information Act requests. However, on last week's conference call, regulators explained that the state retains the ability to extricate itself from FracFocus at any time and build its own site if they feel FracFocus isn't doing an adequate job. It would likely take California at least three years to get its own version of FracFocus online, whereas the industry site is ready now and has been hosting voluntary disclosures for over a year.

"When the companies voluntarily disclosure info, we're happy," said Scott Anderson, a senior policy advisor at the Environmental Defense Fund. "But voluntary disclosure is insufficient."

Surprisingly, over the past year or so, many of the companies engaging in fracking have come to the same conclusion as Anderson. When Wyoming adopted a mandatory disclosure rule in 2010, the state imposed it over significant industry opposition. However, as Anderson explained, the industry has come to see mandatory disclosure as a way to overcome some of the widespread hostility toward fracking. "There's no reason for people to trust data that's doled out by these companies on a voluntary basis," he explained.

This newfound openness toward letting the whole world know about precisely which chemicals they're pumping into the ground isn't exactly universal--it stops at a line marked "trade secrets."

Firms in states with mandatory disclosure rules, such as the ones proposed in California, are able to avoid releasing information about certain compounds by saying that making this information public would put them at a competitive disadvantage against other drilling firms.

The California rules would allow the state to challenge trade secrets claims and require immediate disclosure if a heath professional declares a medical emergency.

In an editorial published a few days after the release of this new set of regulations, the Sacramento Bee came down strongly in favor of the state demanding the strongest level of disclosure possible:
As valuable as fossil fuels are, California groundwater is a much more treasured resource, and it needs to be protected. We don't allow food companies to withhold the fact they might be adding carcinogenic chemicals to their recipes. Why should we allow oil companies to do the same with fracking?

California must insist on full disclosure on fracking chemicals. If regulators think they lack the authority to order such disclosure, then the Legislature will need to pass legislation to make it the law of the land.

Siegel came out even more forcefully. "These draft regulations would keep California's fracking shrouded in secrecy and do little to contain the many threats posed by fracking," she said in a statement. "These regulations are going to have to be completely rewritten if the goal is to provide real protection for our air, water, and communities."

Formal discussion of the fracking rules will begin early next year. During that process, regulators plan on meeting with both environmentalists and industry representatives and will host a series of town hall discussions with members of public in oil-producing areas across the state.

via Huffington Post