To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
April 19, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on April 18, 2005 and to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on April 19, 2005.
April 18, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on April 18, 2005.
April 18, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on April 18, 2005.
April 12, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Subcommittee No. 2 on April 12, 2005.
April 4, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on April 4, 2005.
April 4, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on April 4, 2005.
March 15, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on March 15, 2005.
March 10, 2005 - Presented to the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on March 7, 2005.
March 4, 2005 - What Happened to the Proposal to Redirect UC and CSU Applicants to Community Colleges? This is one of a series of issue briefs examining important questions about higher education funding in California. For more information on this topic, or to request other briefs from this series, contact the Legislative Analyst’s Office Higher Education section at (916) 319-8339, or visit our website at www.lao.ca.gov.
March 3, 2005 - Presented to the Assembly Budget Process Committee on March 2, 2005.
February 24, 2005 - The Governor proposes a number of significant reforms to California’s subsidized child care system including eligibility restrictions, a new waiting list system, and tiered reimbursement rates. With certain qualifications, we support proposed eligibility and waiting list changes. Although tying reimbursement rates to quality makes sense, the Legislature may wish to consider alternative approaches which increase reimbursement rates for higher quality care rather than simply reducing reimbursement rates (as the Governor proposes) for lower quality care.
February 24, 2005 - We recommend the Legislature enact legislation placing before the voters a repeal of Proposition 49 because (1) it triggers an autopilot augmentation even though the state is facing a structural budget gap of billions of dollars, (2) the additional spending on after school programs is a lower budget priority than protecting districts’ base education program, and (3) existing state and federal after school funds are going unused.
February 24, 2005 - Ever since it was first implemented in 1999-00, we have had concerns with the calculation of the charter school categorical block grant funding level. We recommend the Legislature pursue a reform strategy based upon a new control section in the annual budget act that would provide charter schools a share of categorical funding that is equivalent to the proportion of K-12 students they serve. This alternative approach would be simple, workable, and consistent with the original intent of the block grant.