Inland Empire Outlook - Fall 2019

Page 1

A Public Policy Journal Fall 2019

Narrowing the Health Gap

pg. 2 - 9

SB 535: Greenhouse Gas reduction FUND pg. 10 - 18 Sanctuary Cities

pg. 19 - 27

PHOTO CREDIT: pininterest

Narrowing the Health Gap We begin this issue of the Inland Empire Outlook with an examination of the burgeoning medical schools in the region. The University of California Riverside School of Medicine graduated its third class this year and the California University of Science and Medicine, located in San Bernardino, has admitted its second class this year. Kaiser Permenante will admit its first class to a medical school located in Pasadena next summer. Finally, Keck Graduate Institute, in Claremont, has announced a planned medical school and hired its first dean. The establishment of these four medical schools in the region is a promising effort to increase the quantity of physicians and the quality of care in the Inland Empire. Our second article analyzes the series of legislation regulating California’s Greenhouse Gas emissions. The first, AB 32 enacted in 2006, established a capand-trade emissions program. SB 535, passed in 2012, mandated that a minimum of 25% of the money in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund be used on INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 1

projects benefiting disadvantaged communities and directed the California Environmental Protection Agency to develop a program to identify those communities. Finally, the legislature enacted AB 1150 in 2016 requiring that the full 25% be used on project located in disadvantaged communities. A number of the disadvantaged communities receiving these funds are in the Inland Empire. Our final article traces the development of the sanctuary city movement in California which culminated in the enactment of SB 54 in 2017 identifying California as a sanctuary state. SB 54 has withstood judicial challenges by the Justice Department and while it enjoys general support, a number of counties and cities have opposed the policies it mandates. We hope you find this edition of Inland Empire Outlook a useful guide. Please visit our website,, for much more information on Rose Institute research.

Narrowing the Health Gap

White coat ceremony for University of California Riverside School of Medicine Class of 2023. Photo Courtesy of University of California Riverside School of Medicine

by jacob Leischner ’21


fter nearly 11 years of planning and well over $500 million in investments, UC Riverside’s School of Medicine graduated its third class in March of this year. As the first new public medical school in over four decades, the campus was envisioned as a remedy to deteriorating health infrastructure in the Inland Empire. Low access to healthcare, a lack of qualified primary care physicians and specialists, as well as poor quality of care when it is available are just a few of the compounding problems that result in poor healthcare for the entire region. Recognizing this issue has led to a variety of proposed solutions, including plans to increase access to medical education. Since the announcement of the construction of UC Riverside School of Medicine in 2008, three other institutions have announced plans for new medical schools in the region; all share the express purpose to provide competent,


accomplished physicians who are familiar with the area and its population. The most substantial impediment to access to good healthcare for Inland Empire residents is the dearth of physicians. The California Health Care Foundation found that Inland Southern California had the lowest rates of primary care physicians and specialty care physicians of any region in the state. In fact, with 34.5 primary care physicians per 100,000 people in the region, the Inland Empire has barely over half the physicians per capita as compared to the greater Bay Area. Unfortunately, lack of access due to scarcity is not the only issue plaguing Inland healthcare as poor quality of care also abounds. The California Office of the Patient Advocate releases an annual public report

card assessing and ranking physician care across the state and the Inland Empire ranks empirically lowest across nearly every metric. Nearly 92% of all the groups in California that the office assesses receive an “Excellent” or “Good” ranking, yet only 45% of those health groups in the Inland Empire were granted the same. In fact, the Inland region received the highest proportion of “Poor” ratings at 22% (with the next highest being 14% in Los Angeles) and the lowest percentage of “Excellent” ratings at a mere 6% (again, Los Angeles was next lowest, but with over double at 15% “Excellent”). In a more holistic measure, the same organization created a composite score for each California region based on 16 clinical measures. On this ranking the Inland Empire’s 62.1/100 again scored the lowest compared to the 68.6 California average and the Bay Area’s 76.5. Finally, the lack of physicians that reflect the populace they serve may act as a final barrier to accessible healthcare. While 45% of Inland Southern California’s population is Latinx, only 5% of registered MDs are and this disparity is directly

related to the shortage overall. Benjamin Purper, writing for the Center for Health Journalism, found that alongside lower salaries for physicians in the region and competitive neighboring hubs like Los Angeles and Orange, the physician shortage is also due in part to “a diverse population that doesn’t always see itself reflected in the physicians that we have.” The impact of this may be mitigated somewhat due to the fact that there is a higher concentration of physicians that speak Spanish in the regions where they are most needed. The California Health Care Foundation found that in every California region “the percentage of physicians who reported that they spoke Spanish exceeded the percentage of the population that primarily spoke Spanish.” So while a significant amount of progress is still needed to create a more representative supply of physicians in the region, there is still an adequate number of Spanish-speaking doctors to address the demand currently. The 2008 pronouncement that UC Riverside would open a new medical school was a catalyst for a sudden boom in new medical education institutions

Primary Care Physicians and Specialists, 2015

Source: California Healthcare Foundation, California Physicians: Who They Are, How They Practice, August 2017 (updated August 2018)


Physician Group Meeting National Standards of Care, 2008

Source: California Healthcare Foundation, California Physicians: Who They Are, How They Practice, August 2017 (updated August 2018)

in the Southern California. Four distinct schools are currently in various stages of development and all share the goal of increasing access to healthcare in the region. Only two of these schools have been fully accredited and are welcoming students, while the other two are in the process of developing their curricula and faculty. The UCR School of Medicine was announced in July 2008, but had been conceived of five years prior by a special working group created by the school’s thenChancellor, France A. Córdova. By October of the following year Dr. G. Richard Olds was named as UCR School of Medicine’s founding dean. In 2012 the school received accreditation and opened their Education building, and finally in 2013 the inaugural class participated in their white coat ceremony. Slowly the school has been expanding, welcoming subsequent classes as well as new residents and faculty members. The success of the UCR School of Medicine paved the way for the other three schools by proving the viability of a medical school in the Inland Empire. The first of these such schools is the California University of Science and Medicine (CalMed) where the opening class of 64 students began their INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 4

studies in August 2018. Located in San Bernardino, the private, nonprofit medical school received over 2,200 applications for their first class with nearly all applicants hailing from some of the top undergraduate institutions and over a quarter of these having previously received a graduate degree, according to the school. CalMed has also boasted that a third of their new class is “from low-income households and...from underserved areas” while maintaining an equal number of male and female students. Eventually, the student body is expected to expand to 480 students, who “are projected to care for 2.16 million patients annually” according to CUSM’s Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Admissions, Peter Eveland as quoted in the San Bernardino Sun (SBS). This is significant, not just for the large number of patients the class will care for, but primarily for the location where the care is expected to take place. The CalMed students are provided resources and encouragement to stay where they were trained to complete their residencies and begin practicing. In fact, San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe confirmed to the San Bernardino Sun that “CUSM is directing its education, research, and service activities towards addressing the priority

health concerns and wellbeing of underserved areas, including our own communities in Southern California.” Not long after CUSM began gaining traction, Kaiser Permanente - the largest managed healthcare organization in the U.S. - announced their plans to open a new medical school, the Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine (KPSM) with the express purpose of resolving the Inland physician shortage. In February of this year the Liaison Committee on Medical Education granted a “preliminary accreditation” to the school, allowing the school to begin accepting applications, which they did in June. The school will welcome their inaugural class to begin their studies in late summer 2020. The school has been announcing a series of policies that will bring the education they provide more in line with the goal of reducing the Inland physician gap. In June, Kaiser Permanente announced that,

for its first five classes, tuition would be fully waived in a bid to increase the number of applicants from diverse and low-income backgrounds. While tuition will increase to nearly $55,000 per year after the first five classes, the founding dean of the school, Mark Schuster, assured the New York Times that Kaiser Permanente would still provide “very generous financial aid” in keeping with their core mission. Additionally, the school’s plans for small class sizes (only 48 students), the inclusion of new technology for better care, and their training “model of integrated care” all work to create well-rounded primary care physicians that understand the community that surrounds them. Most recently, Keck Graduate Institute (a part of the Claremont University Consortium) announced their intention to create the KGI School of Medicine. The Los Angeles Business Journal reported that Mario Molina was named as the school’s founding

California University of Science and Medicine welcomes its Class of 2023. Photo Courtesy of California University of Science and Medicine


Retention of Medical Students and Residents, 2014

Source: California Healthcare Foundation, California Physicians: Who They Are, How They Practice, August 2017 (updated August 2018)

dean. Molina was the CEO of Molina Healthcare Inc. and will direct the school’s efforts in fundraising and faculty hiring in order to receive the same preliminary accreditation that Kaiser Permenante’s school recently received. The president of the Keck Graduate Institute, Sheldon Schuster, outlined the school’s major goal, which is “to recruit [students] from here, train them here, and keep them here,” citing the Inland physician deficit and the “incredible demand for people who...understand the community and who speak the language.” The establishment of these four schools is a promising start in an effort to increase the quantity of physicians and the quality of care provided in the Inland Empire. However, while the schools share a laudable goal it is necessary to analyze whether or not the proliferation of medical education will solve the twofold problem of access to and quality of care. The newness of these institutions (with two of the four not even at a point


to be accepting applications yet) make this sort of impact analysis more difficult, but not impossible. UC Riverside’s School of Medicine has graduated three classes and, encouragingly, one third of these graduates practice locally, U.S. News reports. Looking at the makeup of these graduates proves that the school is taking significant steps to uphold its promises. In their most recently published yearly review (2017-2018), the UC Riverside School of Medicine reports that a large portion, 45.5 percent, of the 2021 graduating class is from “underrepresented groups in medicine” and that 74.2 percent have ties to the Inland Empire. These statistics suggest that access to quality medical education is an important part of remedying historic health injustices in the area. By training students in the area, they produce future doctors who will remain in the area.

The state too has recognized the substantial success of the new medical school at UC Riverside and has committed additional resources to support the school’s mission. In May, the California Senate advanced a bill to provide additional resources to the UC Riverside School of Medicine to allow them to double their class size within the next five years, but the bill is currently stalled in the State Assembly pending debate. In August the National Institutes of Health awarded the medical school a $16 million grant to support the mission of reducing “health disparities in inland Southern California, particularly among Latino communities that make up about 49% of the region’s population.” The school also received a $250,000 grant in October 2016 from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute “to lay the groundwork for providers and Native American patients in the Riverside-San Bernardino, Calif., area to address patient well-being and chronic health concerns.” With a focus on providing medical education to a diverse set of students and support from a multitude of organizations, the school has been able to tackle the physician drought head-on. The other schools have yet to graduate students, so their outcomes cannot be compared. However, studies show that increasing the number of physicians in a community is directly linked to expanding positive,


long term health outcomes. In a study published in the JAMA Internal Medicine Journal, a team from Stanford University found that an increase of 10 primary care physicians per 100,000 people “was associated with a 51-day increase in life expectancy, after accounting for health care, demographic, socioeconomic and behavioral factors.” This bodes well for a region that will soon have four medical schools training doctors to be an active part of the community and closing the health gap. While the Inland Empire is the region in California most affected by a shortage of physicians, this is not an isolated phenomenon. The Stanford research also found that the rural locales across the country are facing similar circumstances to Inland Southern California. While the overall number of primary care physicians increased in the U.S. between 2005 and 2015, “disproportionate losses in rural counties led to an overall loss in average primary care physician supply at the county level, from 46.6 to 41.4 per 100 000 population.” Fortunately, the boom in medical schools in the Inland Empire can provide a model for other regions with similar institutional health disparities. Accessible medical education for diverse students can work to increase access to both a higher quantity and better quality of care for residents of the Inland Empire, and rural areas across the country. ♦

BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartholomew, Dana. “Keck Graduate Institute Announces Plans for New Claremont Colleges Medical School.” Los Angeles Business Journal, July 30, 2018. keck-graduate-institute-announces-plans-new-clarem/. Basu, Sanjay; Berkowitz, Seth A.; Phillips, Robert L., et al. “Association of Primary Care Physician Supply with Population Mortality in the United States, 2005-2015.” JAMA Internal Med. 179, no; 4 (February 2019): 506-514. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7624. primary-care-physician-supply-and-life-expectancy/. “California University of Science and Medicine 2019 White Coat Ceremony.” California University of Science and Medicine, July 23, 2019. DownloadAttachment?articleid=1886813&fileId=813332&filename=813332.jpg&filetype=4&islogo=0. Coffman, Janet M.; Fix, Margaret; and Ko, Michelle. “California Physician Supply and Distribution: Headed for a Drought?” California Health Care Foundation, June 25, 2018. publication/californias-physicians-headed-drought/. “CUSM Class of 2023 Focused on Service and Healthcare for All.” California University of Science and Medicine, July 23, 2019. Fine, Howard. “Former Molina Healthcare CEO to Lead Claremont Colleges Medical School.” Los Angeles Business School, August 27, 2019. Goodnough, Abby. “Kaiser Permanente’s New Medical School Will Waive Tuition for Its First 5 Classes.” The New York Times, February 19, 2019. Horseman, Jeff. “Bill to expand UC Riverside medical school advances, while law school proposal falters.” The Press-Enterprise, May 23, 2019. Kaiser Health News. “New Med School in Southern California Aims to Tackle Doctor Shortages.” U.S. News & World Report, July 27, 2018. articles/2018-07-27/new-medical-school-in-southern-california-to-tackle-doctor-shortages. “Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine to open summer 2020.” Permanente Medicine, February 19, 2019. Marsa, Linda. “Doctors Wanted: A growing physician shortfall has hospitals compensating in creative ways.” U.S. News & World Report, August 16, 2019.


Paxton, Craig. “California Physician Facts and Figures.” California Health Care Foundation, July 1, 2010. https:// Pittalwala, Iqbal. “Grant Aims to Increase Trust Between Native American Communities, Researchers, and Healthcare Providers.” UCR Today, October 18, 2016. Pittalwala, Iqbal. “New center to address health disparities in inland Southern California.” UCR Magazine, August 23, 2019. Purper, Benjamin. “This booming California empire is on its way to a public health crisis.” Center for Health Journalism, Marc 30, 2018. Rosema, Carrie. “UC Riverside’s School of Medicine welcomed its new class of students at an Aug. 9 ceremony.” Inside UCR, n.d. Coat%20Ceremony%202019-201.jpg. Walline, Angela. “University of California Riverside School of Medicine Year in Review: 2017-2018.” University of California Riverside School of Medicine, n.d. files/2019-02/som20172018_yearinreview.pdf. Whitehead, Brian. “New Inland Empire medical school to welcome inaugural class in July.” San Bernardino Sun, August 1, 2018.


SB 535: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund

PHOTO CREDIT: Bob Kreisel / Alamy

by Anna Green ’20


n 2006, the California Legislature passed AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, establishing the most comprehensive statewide climate change reforms in the nation. Among these were plans for the implementation of a cap-and-trade emissions program, designed to reduce California’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. A portion of state profits from this program go into the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). In 2012, the California legislature passed SB 535, a bill requiring that a minimum of 25% of the money in the GGRF go towards projects benefitting disadvantaged communities. The Inland Empire, comprised of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, contains many areas identified as disadvantaged communities that receive GGRF funding. SB 535 has a broad and complex impact on the Inland Empire; although it positively impacts the area as a whole, its influence on individual disadvantaged communities is more difficult to discern. INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 10

Under California’s cap-and-trade emissions program, the state sets a cap on the volume of carbon emissions (in tons) that can be released in the state and its airways. According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, this program is designed to discourage carbon emissions while allowing businesses to decide how to reduce their carbon footprint; companies have the option either to reduce their own emissions, purchase emission allowances, or trade allowances with other groups. Each year, the program’s greenhouse gas emission cap decreases by 3 %, and the cap is slated to decreased annually by an even faster rate after 2020. The price of the emissions permits also increases each year by a rate of 5% plus inflation, incentivizing companies to decrease their carbon emissions instead of buying permits. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) began selling emission permits in 2012. The capand-trade program was first limited to industrial and power plants that emitted a minimum of

California Climate Investments Implemented by Region (does not include $626M for High-speed Rail Project)


Bay Area

Total Implemented Funds

% of Implemented Funds ($3.36 Billion)

Regional Funds Benefitting Priority Population

% of Regional Funds Benefitting Priority Populations









San Diego/ Imperial





San Joaquin Valley





Other Regions





Los Angeles/Inland Empire

Source: California Climate Investments Implemented by Region, Metropolitan Planning Organization, County, Urban/Rural Designation, and Legislative District

25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, but the state expanded the program in 2015 to include gasoline and diesel companies whose emissions meet the same minimum threshold of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide. The California legislature narrowly passed legislation in 2017 to extend the cap-and-trade program and continue lowering carbon emission goals through 2030. In 2012, California enacted SB 535 as an amendment to the California Global Warming Solutions Act. SB 535 mandates that 25% of the funds in the GGRF go towards projects benefiting disadvantaged communities, with at least 10% of the available funds allocated to projects located within those disadvantaged communities. The remainder of the money in the GGRF still goes towards projects combating climate change, both by reducing GHG emissions and by implementing projects to alleviate the impacts of climate change; however, the funds are not specifically aimed at benefiting disadvantaged communities. In 2016, California enacted AB 1550, which expands the distribution of the funding from the GGRF. AB 1550 increased the percent of funds for projects located in disadvantaged communities from 10% to 25%. It replaced the SB 535 requirement that 25% must benefit those communities by INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 11

requiring the funds to be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities. It also mandates that an additional 5% of GGRF funds must be invested in projects benefiting communities within half a mile of a disadvantaged community and another 5% must fund projects located within and benefiting lowincome communities SB 535 directed the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to identify the disadvantaged communities that will receive funding from SB 535. To do so, the CalEPA uses the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool 3.0 (CalEnviroScreen 3.0), a tool developed by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to identify highly polluted communities. The CalEnivroScreen 3.0 analyzes communities by census tract and evaluates them on 20 different metrics including the health conditions of residents, amount of hazardous waste, and number of people living below the federal poverty level. The CalEnviroScreen score is calculated by combining the individual indicator scores within each of the four component, then multiplying Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics scores to produce a final score. According to the California EPA, disadvantaged communities “represent the 25%

Priority Population Investments

Source: Priority Population Investments, California Air Resources Board, October 1, 2018.

highest scoring census tracts in CalEnviroScreen 3.0, along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.” When CalEnviroScreen 3.0 was released in January 2017, it became the quantitative metric used to identify disadvantaged communities and drastically improved the implementation of SB 535. Research conducted on SB 535 prior to this switch does not reflect the same consistency. For example, a 2014 report published by the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, noted that “although SB 535 mandates that at least 25 percent of the GGRF funded projects should benefit disadvantaged communities, the State has not yet offered a detailed definition of what it means to “benefit disadvantaged communities,” what that entails in practice, nor a systematic process for doing so.” Since the CalEPA switched to using the CalEnviroScreen to identify disadvantaged communities, it has streamlined the process of implementing projects in these areas. It has also increased transparency and accountability to ensure


that the promises outlined in SB 535 are carried out as quickly and effectively as possible. The CARB and CalEPA have together created guidelines for the allocation GGRF money, but the funds are distributed by California agencies, including the CARB, the State Department Agency, the Department of Community Services and Development, and the Strategic Growth Council. InAugust 2019, California Climate Investments, a branch of the ARB, reported that $3.39 billion dollars of the $4.47 billion GGRF dollars allocated towards community projects were used in disadvantaged communities. More specifically, in Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, $ 1,408,932,904, or 83.5% of the total $ 1,688,043,803 allocated for the region, benefitted disadvantaged communities. On September 10, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 100, a bill that aims to increase the state’s reliance on renewable energy and to make all electricity in retail carbon-free by

2045. While this legislation proposes innovative reforms, it could also jeopardize the future funding of the GGRF. California, despite its progressive environmental policies, contains eight of the ten most highly-polluted cities in America. Despite the environmental benefits, the transition to renewable energy in California cannot mitigate the impacts of the current pollution levels. A reduction of carbon usage, and therefore a reduction of money in the GGRF, will decrease funding to areas of California that see impacts of pollution the most: disadvantaged communities. Although researchers have investigated the statewide impacts of SB 535, there is a lack of information or case studies regarding the impacts of GGRF funding on disadvantaged communities in the Inland Empire. This article will provide the initial findings of a case study examining the impacts of SB 535 on the Inland Empire that relies on an analysis of Cal EPA data and interviews with local officials who have participated in the implementation of GGRF-sponsored projects within their communities. The Inland Empire has a diverse composition. Although it was once primarily comprised of agricultural communities, its economy has diversified in recent years to include tourism, industry, and commercial development. As reported by Emily Alpert Reyes, in the LA Times, in the past year, unemployment has decreased significantly in this region, breaking a 15-year trend of staggeringly high unemployment that reached 14% at the peak of the recession. The typically high unemployment rate has not stopped the population of the Inland Empire from growing rapidly. The 2010 census revealed that county-to-county migration from Los Angeles County to San Bernardino and Riverside County were the most significant numbers in the nation. Reyes also reported that between 2007 and 2011, approximately 35,000 more people moved to the Inland Empire from the greater Los Angeles area than people moving the opposite way. The Inland Empire is also geographically diverse; it contains mountain communities such as Big Bear and Arrowhead, desert communities in Palm Desert and Palm Springs,

and valleys such as Pomona and San Bernardino. According to the California Department of Finance, the population of the Inland Empire is 4,590,893, comprising 11.53% of California’s total population. An analysis of data from the California Environmental Protection Agency shows that the Inland Empire contains 257 census tracts (of the approximately 8,000 in California) designated as Disadvantaged Communities. This represents 12.8% of the 2008 total Disadvantaged Communities identified by the CalEPA, slightly higher than the Inland Empire’s share of California’s population (11.53%). Moreover, 44 out of the 257 Disadvantaged Communities census tracts within the Inland Empire scored in the top 95100% of the CalEnviroScreen. The 44 top-scoring communities from the Inland Empire comprise 11% out of the total of 397 of the most highly-polluted communities in California. When examining the implementation of GGRF funding, it is difficult to examine the appropriations on a town-by town basis given the method of financial distribution; allowing statewide organizations to oversee the distribution and utilization of GGRF funding means that the funds oftentimes go to projects that span across groups of towns. Additionally, given the nature of pollution and other environmental issues, it would not be possible to address these problems adequately while concentrating efforts on single towns. Therefore, while the funding can be traced to counties and general geographic areas, most projects can be traced back to their purpose and their funding, but not a singular area. For this case study, the data was drawn from projects that included San Bernardino and Riverside counties, although in some instances, the money used to fund projects in the Inland Empire also went towards projects overlapping with Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Ventura, and San Joaquin counties. Again, this is just a reflection of the nature of the projects used to address pollution. For example, the largest spending category between 2015-2018 was funding for commuter trains. Nearly 50% of the total spending over the past three years, $41,181,000, went towards replacing seven trains and GREENHOUSE>> page 16




California Air Resources Board Community Air Protection Funding Agricultural Replacement Measures for Emissions Reductions Low Carbon Transportation Fluorinated Gases Emission Reduction Incentives Woodsmoke Reduction Prescribed Fire Smoke Monitoring California Department of Transportation Active Transportation Low Carbon Transit Operations (5% Continuous Appropriation) California High-Speed Rail Authority High-Speed Rail Project (25% Continuous Appropriation) California State Transportation Agency Transit and Intercity Rail Capital (10% Continuous Appropriation) Strategic Growth Council Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (including Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation) (20% Continuous Appropriation) Climate Change Research Technical Assistance Transformative Climate Communities California Department of Community Services and Development Low-Income Weatherization California Department of Food and Agriculture Alternative Renewable Fuels State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Dairy Methane Healthy Soils California Department of Water Resources State Water Project Turbines Water-Energy Grant California Energy Commission Food Production Investment Low-Carbon Fuel Production Renewable Energy for Agriculture INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 14

Appropriations Total FY 2019-20 ($M) Appropriations to Date ($M) $291




$492 $1 -$2

$2,214 $1 $8 $8











$5 $2 $60

$34 $6 $250



--$34 $28

$3 $65 $293 $41


$20 $50


$124 $13 $10



Appropriations FY 2019-20 ($M)

California Coastal Commission Local Coastal Program California Conservation Corp Training and Workforce Development California Department of Fish and Wildlife Wetlands and Watershed Restoration California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Prevention Prescribed Fire Sustainable Forests Wildland Urban Interface California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Waste Diversion California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Wildfire Response and Readiness California Natural Resources Agency Regional Forest and Fire Capacity Urban Greening California State Coastal Conservancy Climate Ready California Wildlife Conservation Board Climate Adaption and Conservation Easements San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Coastal Resilience Planning California Environmental Protection Agency Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy California State Water Resources Contral Board Safe Drinking Water (5% Continuous Appropriation) California Workforce Development Board Low Carbon Economy Workforce TOTAL


Total Appropriations to Date ($M)







$84 $35 $170 $10

$191 $60 $627 $10






$20 $156












$35 $11,894

*FY 2019-20 auctions have not yet occurred. Each quarterly auctions will increase Fiscal Year 2019-20 appropriations for programs with continuous appropriations. Source:


GREENHOUSE from page 13

purchasing two additional trains to ensure safe and reliable transportation within the Inland Empire and surrounding communities. By comparison, the second largest allocation of the funding, $9,100,800, was used by the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) to purchase zero-emission trucks for large distribution centers and rail yards. Spending exceeded $1 million in 11 remaining categories: AD, Capital, Clean Vehicle Rebate Project (CVRP), compost, operations, rebate/ incentive programs, residential water efficiency, single family solar PV, transfer program, transit, and voucher incentives. These larger sums of money have gone towards funding large-scale projects in Southern California: acquiring additional trains to be used on the Metrolink commuter rail service, to provide rebates for efficient or zero-emission vehicles, expanding the California FasTrak freeway express lane, installing water-saving devices, making public transportation more efficient, and providing solar photovoltaic systems to single-family, lowincome homes. These state programs have successfully used funding from the GGRF to implement large-scale projects, but when looking at the ways that GGRF funds have benefitted specific disadvantaged communities, the funding and implementation of projects is more difficult to discern. Of the 18 city managers and supervisors contacted by the author, only four responded. Of those who responded, none could speak to the impacts of SB 535 funding on their community. Luke Watson, the Director of Community Development for the city of Temecula, said that, “Climate change via greenhouse [sic] gas is global, so the focus on funding for disadvantage


communities, while noble, seems to lose sight of the fact that the problem exists everywhere.” Jeff Greene, the Chief of Staff for Supervisor Kevin Jeffries of Riverside County District 1 said that their district has not yet received funding as a result of SB 535, but noted, “Distribution of the first cycle was very political, and the Inland Empire was nearly entirely shut out.” Greene also spoke to a lack of state support in terms of the distribution of implementation of funding, but said that he had “heard from [his] transportation partners that it has gotten better.” Debbie Brazill, the Deputy City Manager for Fontana, CA, said that the city has not yet received SB 535 funding, even though it contains 18 of the census tracts identified as being Disadvantaged Communities. As of 2018, $740,581,030 of the GGRF funds have been implemented,$89,559,603, or about 12.1% of those funds have gone towards projects benefitting the Inland Empire. Although this is similar to the percentage of disadvantaged communities in the Inland Empire, relative to the total number of disadvantaged communities (12.8%), it is important to acknowledge the ways in which this funding impacts people in different districts. The largescale projects—such as transit improvements—are important, but the funding is spread across multiple counties. Even though it is possible that people from the Inland Empire are still benefiting from transit that extends to other counties, this still reflects the fact that there is less money going into the Inland Empire than the numbers suggest. Furthermore, although large-scale projects benefit people within the Inland Empire, there is little being done with GGRF funds to mitigate the impacts of climate change within communities themselves. ♦

BIBLIOGRAPHY California Air Resources Board. “Assembly Bill 32 Overview.” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Accessed October 26, 2018. California Air Resources Board. “Cap-and-Trade Program.” California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board. Accessed October 29, 2018. California Air Resources Board. Priority Population Investments. October 1, 2018. Accessed October 19, 2019. “California Cap and Trade.” Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. March 16, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2018. California Environmental Protection Agency. Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (De Leon). April 2017. Accessed October 19, 2019. uploads/sites/6/2017/04/SB-535-Designation-Final.pdf. “CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (updated June 2018).” Accessed October 29, 2018. calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 Callahan, Colleen, and J. R. DeShazo. Report. UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. Accessed October 28, 2018. 535 Report Updated.pdf. “Disadvantaged Communities.” California Climate Investments. Accessed November 19, 2018. http://www. “Disadvantaged Community Designation (Updated June 2017).” Accessed November 18, 2018. Hiltzik, Michael. “No Longer Termed a ‘failure,’ California’s Cap-and-trade Program Faces a New Critique: Is It Too Successful?” Los Angeles Times. January 12, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2018. business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-captrade-20180111-story.html. “” InlandEmpireus. Accessed November 19, 2018. Kingsley, Julia. Closing California’s Climate Gap: Understanding SB 535 Funding Allocations to Disadvantaged Communities. Senior Thesis, Occidental College, 2015. 11. Accessed October 27, 2018. sites/default/files/assets/UEP/Comps/Kingsley Closing CA’s Climate Gap (com).pdf. Koseff, Alexei, Taryn Luna, and Jim Miller. “Climate Change Deal Squeaks out of California Legislature despite Gas Price Worries.” Accessed October 28, 2018. capitol-alert/article161887448.html. Koseff, Alexei. “California Approves Goal for 100% Carbon-free Electricity by 2045.” Accessed October 28, 2018. INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 17

Reyes, Emily Alpert. “Tens of Thousands Leave Los Angeles County for Inland Empire.” Los Angeles Times. February 08, 2014. Accessed November 17, 2018. Rice, Doyle. “California Has Eight of 10 Most Polluted U.S. Cities.” USA Today. April 20, 2018. Accessed October 28, 2018. “SB 535 Fact Sheet.” Accessed October 28, 2018. SB535 Fact Sheet_0.pdf. Siegrist, Claire. 2016. “Partnership Fosters Food Access And Renewable Biogas.” BioCycle 57 (3): 44–46. State Department of Finance. “E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2017 and 2018.” California Department of Finance, May 2018, Estimates/E-1/. Vien Truong. 2014. “Addressing Poverty and Pollution: California’s SB 535 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 49 (2): 493-529 18fbd5b%40sessionmgr4010&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=101108901&db =aph


Photo by Jeff Chiu / Associated Press

Impact of SB 54 on IE by Nandini Jayaram ’22


anctuary cities are municipalities where law enforcement officials are not allowed to inquire about the immigration status of a criminal suspect and can only notify federal immigration officers of a suspect’s release from jail under specific circumstances. One of the defining features of a sanctuary city is that local law enforcement is prohibited from sharing information about the immigration status of undocumented immigrants in custody with federal authorities. The primary objective of sanctuary policies is to limit collaboration between local and federal government, but sanctuary policy does not provide immunity for undocumented immigrants, hence not entirely protecting them from being subject to federal immigration law. The sanctuary movement began in the 1980s as a religiously- and politically-motivated activism INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 19

campaign to protect Central Americans escaping persecution by giving them formal refugee status. Berkeley, California was the first city in the nation to pass a sanctuary resolution, and while Los Angeles did not pass an official sanctuary policy, it was renowned for providing a safe sense of community for its growing Latino population, becoming its own version of a sanctuary city. In addition to Berkeley and Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Ana, and Watsonville are the most notable sanctuary cities in California. Fourteen counties in California, including Riverside and San Bernardino, have adopted sanctuary policies. Since 1996, as a result of Congress’s failure to reform immigration policy, there has been an increase in cooperation between federal government officials and state and local governments to enforce immigration

law. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, state and local law enforcement were further tasked with immigration responsibilities. However, this specific response gave rise to accusations of racial profiling and unfair ethnic discrimination. Though sanctuary policies were initially implemented in the 1980s to protect Central American refugees, they have now extended to focus on limiting collaboration between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration officers who seek to enforce immigration laws. There are two main arguments in favor of sanctuary cities. The first is that the protection offered to undocumented immigrants encourages positive relationships between the immigrant community and local law enforcement officials. Quoted in a U.S. News article, U.S. Representative (D-CA) Zoe Lofgren says, “When people are afraid the police might ask about immigration status, they are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with investigations. As a result, criminals thrive, and the general public suffers.” One of California’s most prominent and oldest sanctuary cities, San Francisco, which implemented its “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, has a very low number of murders, 46 in 2018. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics show that despite the low number of murders, the murder rate per 100,000 residents in San Francisco, 5.2, is higher than the rate for California (4.4) and for the United States (5.0). Moreover, the rate per 100,000 residents of violent crime in San Francisco (690.9) is much higher than the rate for California (447.4) and for the United States (380.6). Another pro-sanctuary policy argument is that state and local sanctuary laws protect undocumented immigrants from unjust federal immigration policies. The argument is backed by the claim that federal immigration policies are created to focus on deporting the undocumented immigrant population, including those residing in the U.S. since childhood, referred to as “Dreamers.” Supporters of sanctuary policy believe that state protection provides safe haven for undocumented immigrants. Opponents argue that sanctuary policies prevent police officers from doing their job to keep the INLAND EMPIRE OUTLOOK | 20

community safe. Scholars like Heather MacDonald argue that many gang members living in Los Angeles entered the United States illegally and due to the protection of sanctuary policies, police officers are not permitted to arrest undocumented immigrants for illegal entry and have to wait for them to commit another crime to arrest them. Thus arguing that future violent crimes could be prevented if law enforcement officials were allowed to arrest undocumented immigrants on the sole basis of violating immigration law by entering the United States illegally. One of the primary arguments against sanctuary cities is that they release criminals back into the community, endangering the safety of the other residents. For example, San Francisco has released undocumented immigrants with felony convictions and multiple deportations back into their community. The assertion that sanctuary policies are correlated to increased crime surfaced during President Trump’s campaign, when he repeated that sanctuary policies “breed crime.” In early 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order to withhold federal grant funding from local governments that are sanctuary jurisdictions (Executive Order 13768, 2017). The City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clarita challenged the order. They prevailed at trial, where the judge issued a nationwide, permanent injunction against enforcement of the order. The Ninth Circuit upheld that decision. Research about the correlation between sanctuary policies and crime rates is inconclusive. One hypothesis that argues for a positive correlation between sanctuary policies and increased crime is that undocumented immigrants already residing in localities with “limited cooperation policies” may undergo behavioral changes. This argument states that when undocumented immigrants perceive a reduced risk of deportation in a town where local law enforcement does not cooperate with federal immigration officers, they may become emboldened to commit crimes. Sanctuary policies may attract more undocumented immigrants inclined to committing crimes because of this same perception of reduced threat of deportation. Sanctuary supports respond that the undocumented immigrants residing

Photo by Anne Cusack/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

in these areas are most likely very well informed of the extent of the “sanctuary” the policies provide to them. Sanctuary policies do make exceptions for violent and serious felonies. Instead, research shows that there has been an increase in the number of crimes reported in cities in California with sanctuary policies. This most likely occurs since undocumented immigrants feel safer communicating with law enforcement when there is no longer a concern of a police officer requesting legal status information. A Washington Post survey of 594 respondents from the large undocumented Mexican population of about 73,000 in San Diego County supports this theory. The results showed that when told that local law enforcement officials were not working in collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, undocumented immigrants are more likely to report witnessing a crime and being the victim of a crime. Additionally, 70% of undocumented immigrants and 44% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to report if they were the victim of crime in fear of law enforcement inquiring about their immigration status. Consequently, this


increased level of trust between noncitizens and local law enforcement could reduce crime rates and even deter potential criminals. This research suggests that sanctuary policies may cause a reduction in crime over time as a result of increased reports of crimes from undocumented immigrants to police officers and a higher number of arrests. The California legislature recently passed a sanctuary state law in opposition to federal government policy Governor Jerry Brown signed the California Values Act, Senate Bill 54, otherwise known as California’s “Sanctuary State Law”, into law in October 2017. In his bill signing message, Governor Brown emphasized the cooperation between local, state, and federal officials that will continue. “[T]he bill does not prohibit sheriffs from granting immigration authorities access to California jails to conduct routine interviews, nor does it prevent cooperation in deportation proceedings for anyone in state prison or for those in local jails for any of the hundreds of serious offenses listed in the TRUST Act.” His message reiterates SB 54 supporters’ argument that the law will not allow violent criminals to remain in

the community and facilitates cooperation with ICE when dealing with “serious” and “violent” crimes. SB 54, in response to the Trump administration’s push to increase deportations, limits state and local law enforcement’s interactions with the federal government when identifying undocumented immigrants. It also specifically bans local police officers from collaborating with immigration officers to arrest undocumented immigrants for non-violent crimes. Local law enforcement can respond to requests depending on the seriousness of the crime, allow ICE officers to interview detainees based on certain requirements, and participate in a joint task force only if the purpose of the task force is not enforcing immigration laws. California has the largest undocumented immigrant population in the United States and has vowed to protect all residents, regardless of status, through SB 54. However, the law has pushback from federal authorities. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed federal litigation against SB 54, while accusing California state officials of using “every power the legislature has to undermine the duly established

Photo by AP GraphicsBank


immigration laws of America.” The state of California prevailed at trial in 2018 and the Ninth Circuit upheld that decision in 2019. The Department of Justice was not, however, the only entity to challenge SB 54. The Mercury News reports that at least fourteen cities and two counties have passed ordinances against California’s sanctuary laws. It is also not clear how strongly the public supports sanctuary policies. According to an Institute of Governmental Studies survey conducted in 2016, about 73% of respondents oppose sanctuary policies, and opposition was strong in older age groups and in ethnic groups other than Latino. However, this survey was only conducted in English and was only provided to registered voters in California, so non-citizen residents and residents unable to speak English were not included in the surveyed pool; thus the numbers may underestimate support to sanctuary cities. An example of a state that enforced anti-immigration legislation which was perceived as worsening public safety rather than improving it is Texas. In early 2017, the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4, an “anti-

Photo by Drew A. Kelley /Orange County Register

sanctuary city” bill, almost exactly the opposite of SB 54. SB 4 criminalized local police officers who did not cooperate with federal immigration authorities regarding undocumented immigrants’ status and allowed local law enforcement to be prosecuted if they did not agree to temporarily house undocumented immigrants detained by federal immigration authorities. Though in one sense this bill entirely contradicts SB 54, SB 4 is even more controversial because it deputizes local law enforcement to bear the additional responsibility of enforcing federal laws, hence “distracting” them from their primary responsibility to the local and state government. Additionally, SB 4 further reinstates the state-specific focus on deporting undocumented immigrants who are not posing any threat to the larger community, such as “cooks and nannies, not hardened criminals,” said Houston police chief Art Acevedo. This bill exemplifies supporters of SB 54’s concern that the immigrant community will become more fearful of and reduce voluntary cooperation with local law enforcement. Such examples of anti-immigration legislation show that these could worsen public safety, as opposed to sanctuary policies that could improve


public safety with a safer space for immigrants to speak up to local law enforcement. Since the Inland Empire encompasses a broad range of political views, many cities within Inland Empire are split over sanctuary policy. Cities in Riverside County are especially divided over sanctuary laws. The city of Corona joined the list of California cities against SB 54, while Palm Springs is supporting California in the lawsuit against Attorney General Sessions and Coachella passed a resolution becoming a sanctuary city. Vice Mayor Eugene Montanez of Corona, California stated in an interview that the passage of SB 54 has caused local law enforcement to bear more responsibility with managing the county jail as a result of realignment. Montanez commented that SB 54 has not really affected the city of Corona as there is not much interaction with Homeland Security or with ICE. Corona’s city-specific policy is to collaborate with any and all federal agencies as requested. In contrast to Corona’s policies, Palm Springs has an entirely different stance on sanctuary policy.

Recognized in 2018 as the nation’s first entirely LGBT council, composed of three gay men, one transgender woman, and one bisexual woman, Palm Springs has made history. In an interview, Council Member Lisa Middleton said, “The city of Palm Springs is extremely committed to diversity and inclusion of everyone. We have a broken federal immigration system going back well over 20 years, and because the federal government has failed in enforcing a responsible compromise to immigration policy, states and localities are forced to respond to these problems.” Palm Springs has many residents who have worked and raised children in the city for most of their lives, but the parents of these children do not have permanent legal status and are living in fear of being torn apart. Council Member Middleton


commented on this, “Our community is trying to assure those residents that they don’t have anything to fear from local officials. I am very proud of our police department, headed by a Latino man, and I am absolutely confident that if the chief of police was concerned by the danger of any situation, he would report it to us.” Regarding the correlation of sanctuary policy to reporting of crimes, city council members have noticed a decrease in crime reports in local communities where no reassuring action has been taken by local law enforcement. Council Member Middleton noted that former Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck reported a drop in reporting of crimes occurring within immigrant and Latinx communities following the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. ♦

BIBLIOGRAPHY Acevedo, Carli. “Shouse Law Group.” California Criminal Defense Lawyers, Barkas, Sherry. “Trump Vowed to Tighten Funding for Jurisdictions with Sanctuary Status. Here’s Why Coachella Isn’t Concerned.” Desert Sun. Accessed October 27, 2018. news/local/coachella/2017/08/23/coachella-becomes-valleys-second-sanctuary-city/595599001/. Bernhard, R., Citrin, J., Lenz, G., & Rarick, E. (2016). “The IGS survey: California politics and policy IGS poll finds support for extending taxes on wealthy, legalizing marijuana, and toughening gun control.” California Journal of Politics and Policy, 8(4), 0_1,1-26. doi: P2cjpp8432679 “California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative (2014).” Ballotpedia,, Reduced_Penalties_for_Some_Crimes_Initiative_(2014). Casellas, Jason P., & Wallace, Sophia Jordán. “Sanctuary Cities: Public Attitudes Toward Enforcement Collaboration Between Local Police and Federal Immigration Authorities.” Urban Affairs Review, May 30, 2018, 1078087418776115. Chinchilla, N. S., Hamilton, N., & Loucky, J. (2009). “The sanctuary movement and central american activism in Los Angeles.” Latin American Perspectives, 36(6), 101-126. doi: org/10.1177/0094582X09350766 DiSarro, B., & Hussey, W. (2017). “California: Taxing times in the sanctuary state.” California Journal of Politics and Policy, 9(4), 1-26. Retrieved from Federal Bureau of Investigation. Fuller, Thomas. “Judge Rules for California Over Trump in Sanctuary Law Case.” The New York Times, July 6, 2018, sec. U.S. Harkinson, Josh. “Actually, Sanctuary Cities Are Safer,” Mother Jones, July 10, 2015. Horseman, Jeff. “Will Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Join the Federal Lawsuit against the Sanctuary State Law?” Daily Bulletin (blog), April 5, 2018. will-riverside-and-san-bernardino-counties-join-the-federal-lawsuit-against-the-sanctuary-state-law/. Jayaram, Nandini, and Eugene Montanez. “Sanctuary Policy in Corona.” Interview 19 Nov. 2018. Jayaram, Nandini, and Lisa Middleton. “Sanctuary Policy in Palm Springs.” Interview 4 Dec. 2018. Kennedy, Corinne S, and Samuel Metz. “California’s Fight against Trump on Immigration Is Far from over. These Cities Are a Perfect Example.” Desert Sun. Accessed October 27, 2018.


Kopetman, Roxana. “California’s Sanctuary Law, SB54: Here’s What It Is — and Isn’t.” Orange County Register (blog), May 4, 2018. “LexisNexis® State Capital - Document.” Accessed October 27, 2018. docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVzB-zSkVS&_md5=0ab0b0d5259a95dfb395ea892a1be609. Lofgren, Zoe. “Sanctuary Cities Keep Communities Safe,” U.S. News, July 28, 2015. MacDonald, Heather. “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave,” City Journal Magazine, Winter 2004. Martínez, Daniel E., Ricardo D. Martínez‐Schuldt, and Guillermo Cantor. “Providing Sanctuary or Fostering Crime? A Review of the Research on ‘Sanctuary Cities’ and Crime.” Sociology Compass 12, no. 1 (January 1, 2018): e12547. Napolitano, Andrew. “Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law.” Tenth Amendment Center, Aug 10, 2017. Nichols, Chris. “Separating Fact from Fiction on CA’s Sanctuary State Law.” PolitiFact California. Accessed October 27, 2018. O'Donnell, Amanda. “Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo: 'Sanctuary Cities' Bill Targets 'Cooks & Nannies,' Not Criminals.” Statesman, American-Statesman Staff, 22 Sept. 2018, houston-police-chief-art-acevedo-sanctuary-cities-bill-targets-cooks--nannies-not-criminals. Plevin, Rebecca. “With New Law, Sheriffs Will No Longer Notify Immigration Authorities When Some Undocumented Immigrants Are Released from Jail.” Desert Sun. Accessed October 27, 2018. https://www. Sanchez, Tatiana. “California Cities are Rebelling Against Sanctuary Law, But How Far Can They Go?” The Mercury News. April 24, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2019. california-cities-are-rebelling-against-state-sanctuary-law-but-how-far-can-they-go/ “Sanctuary Cities and the Criminal Justice System.” Criminal Justice Degree Hub, Shane, Daniel. “A Revobluetion: The Inland Empire’s New Political Geography.” Inland Empire Outlook, Rose Institute of State and Local Government, April 11, 2013. Somin, Ilya. “Fight over sanctuary cities is also a fight over federalism.” The Hill, April 7, 2018. Spakovsky, Hans A. von. “Sanctuary Cities? That’s a Constitutional ‘Hell No.’” The Heritage Foundation, April


18, 2017. United States, Congress, Cong. House. 115AD. 115th Congress, 2nd session, document 49. “White Privilege.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Dec. 2018, privilege. Wong, Tom K. “Sanctuary Cities Don't 'Breed Crime.' They Encourage People to Report Crime.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Apr. 2018,


IEO Fall 2019 Edition Student Staff

Anna Green ’21

Jacob Leischner ’21


Nandini Jayaram ’22

Adhitya Venkatraman ’22

About the Rose Institute

Andrew E. Busch, PhD Director,

Kenneth P. Miller, PhD, JD Associate Director

Bipasa Nadon, JD Assistant Director

Marionette Moore Administrative Assistant

ST U DE N T STAFF Anna Green ’21 Jacob Leischner ’21 Nandini Jayaram ’22 Adhitya Venkatraman ’22

The Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College was founded in 1973. An unmatched resource for information on California state and local governments, the Institute maintains extensive demographic, economic, and political databases on the Southern California region. Under the direction of nationally-recognized faculty and staff, students from Claremont McKenna College play a significant role in researching, interpreting, and presenting data. The Institute specializes in four areas: survey research, criminal justice analysis, demographic studies, and legal and regulatory analysis. The mission of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government is to enhance the education of students at CMC, to produce high quality research, and to promote public understanding on issues of state and local government, politics, and policy, with an emphasis on California. The Institute employs close to 30 student research assistants each year, almost all of whom stay for the duration of their time at Claremont McKenna College. To receive issues of this publication electronically and news from the Rose Institute, please e-mail us at Learn more about us at


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.