To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
July 28, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on Higher Education In San Diego County
July 1, 2014 - The Legislature passed the Student Success Act of 2012 in an effort to improve student outcomes at the California Community Colleges (CCC). Since enactment, community colleges have made a number of changes designed to enhance support services for students. Though development and implementation of these changes still are in their early stages, overall we believe CCC is making changes consistent with the act and is on the right track. While the system is well underway in implementing the various provisions of the act, we believe the system has additional work to do in addressing other complementary priorities, particularly in the areas of course alignment, basic skills, and professional development.
May 15, 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 8, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 2, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 2, 2014 - Presented to CCC All Financial Aid Directors' Meeting
March 28, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on Higher Education in San Diego County
March 26, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 21, 2014 - As required by Chapter 620, Statutes of 2012 (Assembly Bill 970, Fong), we reviewed the University of California’s and California State University’s compliance with certain student fee and financial aid provisions. Enclosed is our report. In the report, we first provide background on fee policies in the state and then describe the main Chapter 620 requirements. We next review the segments’ responses to the requirements in Chapter 620, provide our assessment of their compliance, and offer a few related recommendations for the Legislature’s consideration.
March 13, 2014 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
March 5, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 26, 2014 - Presented to: Senate Education Committee Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
February 12, 2014 - This report analyzes the Governor’s 2014-15 higher education budget. We continue to have serious concerns with the Governor’s approach to funding the universities, particularly as it significantly diminishes the Legislature’s role in key budget decisions and allows the universities to pursue segmental over state interests. We recommend the Legislature take an alternative approach that: (1) designates funding for specific purposes (including enrollment at the California State University and debt-service payments), (2) shares cost increases among the state and students, and (3) monitors the universities’ performance in specific areas (such as student success). We think the Governor’s approach to funding the community colleges is much better but recommend various ways for the Legislature to refine specific community college proposals. Most notably, rather than augmenting a single student support categorical program by $200 million, we recommend the Legislature consolidate seven student support programs into a block grant, thereby offering colleges considerably more flexibility in deciding the best ways to support their students.
February 11, 2014 - Over the last six years, the state has moved away from its traditional budgetary approach for the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Notably, the state no longer (1) funds enrollment or inflation, (2) designates as much funding for specific purposes, or (3) reviews UC's capital projects as part of the regular budget process. Instead, the state has been providing the universities with unallocated funding increases and allowing the universities to make funding decisions previously made by the state. Another recent change to the state's budgetary approach is its inclusion of performance measures (though the state has not yet determined how to factor these measures into its budget decisions). Despite these changes to the traditional budgetary approach, one aspect that has not changed in recent years is the state's ad-hoc approach to student tuition. We recommend the Legislature return to using its traditional approach to funding the universities but make some refinements. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature resume funding enrollment but set enrollment expectations for different types of students and for a longer time horizon. We also recommend the Legislature fund a new freshman eligibility study. Further, we recommend the Legislature resume funding inflation and assume students and the state share in cost increases. To address concerns about the traditional budgetary approach's lack of emphasis on efficiency, we recommend the Legislature use its recently adopted performance measure relating to spending per degree to monitor the universities' productivity. We also recommend the Legislature review capital projects for the universities through the regular budget process.