Effects of California's Budget on the State College System

Opinions Divided Over State Budget's Aid to Public Colleges

On May 14, Arnold Schwarzenegger will release his revised 2010-2011 budget. In the coming months, he will also seek to put his proposed amendment before the Legislature, said Rachel Arrezola, a spokesperson for the governor. If the amendment fails to win passage, the governor may seek to put the issue before voters in a ballot initiative, she said.

The budget, which was released in January, is designed to curb state spending. If adopted, higher education will be one of the few items in California’s budget that receives an increase in funding compared to the previous year. It would restore $371 million of last year’s cuts to the University of California and $365 million to the California State University system.

In his final State of the State address, the governor also said he would push for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit California from spending more money on its prisons than on its universities.

Last year, California’s prisons received 11 percent of the state’s general fund while 7.5 percent went to higher education. Under the new proposal, no less than 10 percent of the state’s general fund would be allotted for higher education while no more than 7 percent would go to the state prison system, the governor said.

Both the budget and the proposed amendment have received positive reviews from the two university systems.

“These restorations, in addition to the governor’s proposed constitutional amendment…are clear evidence that the governor understands the vital role public higher education plays in California,” University of California president Mark Yudof said in a statement.

California State University Chancellor Charles B. Reed also praised the Governor for restoring funding to the CSU. “The governor has recognized the importance of higher education for California’s economic recovery,” he said. “While we are still faced with challenging circumstances, this reinvestment will help start the CSU on the path to recovery.”

Though his budget has been well received, the governor’s proposed amendment has drawn criticism. Many in the prison system feel that it is too simplistic, and that it doesn’t take into account the welfare of the prisoners.

“It’s too easy to just say we need to take money away from prisons and give it to education,” said parole agent Dianna Malk. “Of course the state needs to invest more money in our universities. But when you talk about taking money from the prisons, where is the money being cut from? Where do the guys fit into the picture?”

The governor’s plan calls for cutting spending through privatization, according to his chief of staff Susan Kennedy. Some money for the universities would come from the reduction of prison staff salaries. Other reductions would result from cutbacks in inmate medical costs and from millions of dollars the state expects to bring in from new legislation that reduces its parole burdens, she said.

Still, taking money from the prisons will likely have unforeseen long-term consequences, says Malk. “Already, a lot of teachers have been cut and so have vocational programs. So many of these prisoners are missing out on opportunities – ones that many would like to take advantage of – to better themselves for when they get out of prison. So, instead, they’re sitting in their cells all day telling ‘war dog’ stories to each other and thinking about how to be a better criminal.”

Because of that, it’s highly likely that prisoners will return to a life of crime when they’re released. Thus, Malk says, the rate of recidivism is going to increase.

Other notable critics of the governor’s plan include the Legislative Analyst’s Office. In its annual analysis of the state budget, the LAO recommended that voters reject the proposal. “It is an unnecessary, ill-conceived measure that would do serious harm to the budget process,” the LAO report reads.

Outside the state’s systems, reaction to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s plan to take money away from prisons has generally varied. Groups like the Tea Party say that, while Governor Schwarzenegger is on the right track, he’s not going about his end goal correctly. If we’re going to take money away from prisons and give it to the universities, they say, we need to do so in steps and not in a one-size-fits-all legislative act.

“California’s prison system is like a rock. With his plan, Governor Schwarzenegger is trying to just blow on through the rock and break it up. That’s not going to work, and it’s not going to save California any money,” said Tea Party member Tim Donnelly. “What we need to do instead is chip away at the rock piece by piece until we’ve molded it so that the prison system works.”

According to Donnelly, “chipping away” means a two-phase plan that first includes deporting the illegal prisoners back to their country of origin, “which will save almost $2 billion per year,” and then expanding on Schwarzenegger’s idea of privatization by forming a public-private partnership with the prison system.

“With the money we save through doing both of those things, then we can give money back to the universities to help our kids,” he says. “Otherwise, all we’re doing is moving money around from one program to another…and just robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Students’ reaction to the proposed amendment is mixed. Some students believe that a shift of funds from prisons to higher education will alleviate some of their financial burden. They also assert that it will help restore full class schedule offerings each quarter/semester, end furlough days, and re-establish dropped programs.

“I think it sounds like a great plan that will enable the colleges to hire more teachers, provide more classes, allow more students acceptance and possibly lower students’ tuition,” said CSU San Bernardino student Ashley Payne. “They keep raising our tuition and yet there are less classes to choose from and less people getting into the system. So maybe if the governor’s amendment gets passed, it will help more students to be able to attend college.”

But Mrs. Payne’s opinion is not universal. Other students feel that Gov. Schwarzenegger has not done enough to bring about change in California’s universities.

“I don’t think enough has been done to help our universities. The damage done to our colleges and universities is the worst it has been in recent history,” said UC Santa Cruz student Victor Sanchez. “Greater solutions must come, and there is a need to fully fund as well as seek new creative forms of alternative revenue that will stabilize education for the future.”

Those who feel the same as Mr. Sanchez have taken to protesting and lobbying for California’s government to invest more money in higher education.

On March 1, University of California administration and student leaders from the University of California Student Association (USCA) converged in Sacramento to lobby state leaders.

Among other things, the 500 students lobbied in favor of Assembly Bill 656, said Sanchez, UCSA’s president. The bill calls for taxing oil and natural gas drawn from California soil or waters, and devoting the money to UC, CSU and community colleges. According to the USCA, it would raise $1 billion a year.

On April 27, representatives from the University of California, California State Universities and community colleges met in Sacramento to visit all 120 legislative offices during Intersegmental Advocacy Day, said Lynn Tierney, Vice President of Communications for the UC Office of the President.

Student advocates fought to save the Competitive Cal Grant and lobbied for Assembly Bill 2447, which would institutionalize Cal Grants so they cannot be eliminated, Sanchez said.

In response to the protest, Gov. Schwarzenegger promised to veto any budget that did not include more funding for higher education.

Despite the idea from some students that Gov. Schwarzenegger needs to invest even more in higher education, some parents are applauding the effort the governor has put forth.

“I think the amendment is a really good idea. Right now there’s no money to give to the students for financial aid and to attend a state college is very expensive,” said mother of two state college students, Heidi Mak. “Good for Governor Schwarzenegger for recognizing that the universities need help!”

But, it is not just those in the prison or the state university systems that will be affected by the amendment. California’s taxpayers will share the burden of paying for it, many of whom feel that their money will be much better spent on the university systems than on the prisons.

“I think that the education of our young people is far more important than keeping pot dealers off the street for maybe a couple years,” said stay-at-home mother Erica Weaver. “If it comes up on a ballot I’d vote for it for sure. I would much rather my tax dollars go toward helping the universities than towards the prison system.”

However, other taxpayers are apprehensive at the thought of their tax money being taken away from the prisons. Their concern is that, by providing California’s prisons with less money, the crime rate will go up and their communities will be less safe.

“If you weigh the two concepts against each other, I think you have to look at the bigger picture,” says real estate manager, Carey Treff. “My concern is that, with the prisons losing all this money, we’re gonna have way more criminals back on the street than we’ve had before. And that’s a big public safety issue.”

Mr. Treff added that perhaps we should look at other agencies to take money from first before we look at taking tax dollars away from the prisons. Otherwise, he said, we may be putting the public’s safety at risk.