To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
May 15, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
May 15, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
May 8, 2014 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education Finance
May 1, 2014 - Presented to: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 29, 2014 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 29, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 23, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 22, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 11, 2014 - Due to a combination of poor budgeting practices and competing funding priorities, all of the state's education segments currently have a backlog of deferred maintenance projects. The Governor’s budget includes a package of proposals to begin addressing this backlog. While we commend the administration for highlighting deferred maintenance as a problem, we have concerns with the Governor's specific proposals and recommend the Legislature consider various alternatives. Looking beyond 2014-15, we believe the state should have a long-term strategy for properly maintaining education facilities. While a one-size-fits-all response very likely is not appropriate for such a diverse array of education segments, segment-specific plans likely could be very helpful. To this end, we recommend the Legislature require the education segments to develop plans that detail how much they set aside annually for scheduled maintenance, how they plan to eliminate their existing deferred maintenance backlogs over the next several years, and how they plan to avoid creating new backlogs thereafter. (In contrast to the other segments, we believe the state should not impose additional maintenance requirements on elementary and secondary schools at this time. The different approach for schools acknowledges the state’s recent decision to shift fiscal decision making and accountability for many aspects of schools’ operations—including maintenance—to the local level.)
April 10, 2014 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 10, 2014 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittees No. 1 on Education and No. 3 on Health and Human Services
April 8, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 7, 2014 - To be presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 4, 2014 - We believe California's child care and development system has several serious design flaws. Most notably, families accessing some subsidized child care programs may choose among a broad array of providers whereas families accessing other programs have access to child care only offered in particular places. In addition, some child care programs are required to include developmentally appropriate activities whereas other programs are required to meet only health and safety standards. While these two elements--choice and developmentally appropriate care--are strengths of specific child care programs, the fundamental shortcoming of California's current system is that no subsidized program exhibits both of these strengths concurrently. Given the serious shortcomings of the state's child care and development system, we recommend the Legislature fundamentally restructure it. Our report lays out a plan for a new, simplified, more rational system that treats similar families similarly. Since a fundamental restructuring would take time, the report also includes a roadmap that the Legislature could use for incrementally moving to this new system.
April 3, 2014 - Presented to: California Association of Chief Business Officers