To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
May 27, 2016 - State law tasks the Commission on State Mandates with determining whether new state laws or regulations affecting local governments create state-reimbursable mandates. Typically, the process for determining whether a law or regulation is a state-reimbursable mandate takes several years. State law further requires our office to analyze any new mandates identified by the commission as part of our annual analysis of the proposed state budget. In particular, state law directs our office to report on the annual state costs for new mandates and make recommendations to the Legislature as to whether the new mandates should be repealed, funded, suspended, or modified. In this budget post, we discuss the Sheriff Court-Security Services mandate.
May 24, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Business and Professions; Assembly Committee on Health; Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation;Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
May 24, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Business and Professions; Assembly Committee on Health; Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation; Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development
May 17, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Public Safety Committee and Senate Public Safety Committee
May 17, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Public Safety Committee and Senate Public Safety Committee
May 16, 2016 - The Governor’s May Revision proposes a $24.5 million General Fund augmentation for various inmate rehabilitation programs. The proposed augmentation would increase to $44.4 million in 2017-18 and decline to $37.1 million in 2018-19. While we recommend approving additional funding for those programs that appear to be effective, we recommend rejecting funding for proposals for which there is not clear evidence of effectiveness and those that lack sufficient detail.
May 3, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Public Safety Committee and Senate Public Safety Committee
April 21, 2016 - Presented to: Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 4 On State Administration and General Government Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 On Corrections, Public Safety, and the Judiciary
March 16, 2016 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety
March 10, 2016 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, and the Judiciary
March 9, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 5 on Public Safety
March 3, 2016 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety and the Judiciary
February 22, 2016 - In this report, we provide an analysis of the Governor's budget proposals for state criminal justice departments and programs, including for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the judicial branch, the Department of Justice, and various local public safety programs. We review the most significant proposals in these areas and offer corresponding recommendations for the Legislature's consideration.
February 12, 2016 - In this report, we (1) provide an overview of the major effects of Proposition 47 on the state, (2) recommend a framework for satisfying the measure’s requirement that the state savings it creates be deposited into a new special fund, and (3) describe and assess the administration’s approach for meeting the measure’s fiscal requirements, including the allocation of the monies deposited in the new fund.
January 5, 2016 - Based on our review of the existing fine and fee system, we make various recommendations for improvement. First, we recommend that the Legislature reevaluate the overall structure of the fine and fee system to ensure the system is consistent with its goals. Second, we recommend increasing legislative control over the use of criminal fine and fee revenue to ensure that its uses are in line with legislative priorities by (1) requiring that most criminal fine and fee revenue be deposited in the state General Fund, (2) consolidating most fines and fees into a single, statewide charge, (3) evaluating the existing programs supported by fine and fee revenues, and (4) mitigating the impacts of potential changes to the fine and fee system on local governments.