To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
January 11, 2007 - Each campus and medical center of the University of California (UC) periodically develops a long range development plan (LRDP) that guides its physical development--based on academic goals and projected student enrollment levels--for an established time horizon. This report reviews the process used by UC to prepare LRDPs and analyzes whether it adequately addresses the impacts that campus growth has on surrounding communities. We generally found a lack of accountability, standardization, and clarity in the current process, and recommend steps to make the process more transparent and effective (such as ensuring greater legislative oversight and public involvement in the development of an LRDP).
March 28, 2006 - Year-to-year changes in the state’s higher education costs are greatly influenced by changes in student enrollment levels. Each year as part of the annual budget process, the Legislature must determine (1) how many additional students will enroll at the University of California and the California State University and (2) how much it will cost to serve those additional students. This report reviews factors that influence enrollment growth and the current methodology of calculating the “marginal cost” of serving additional students. Specifically, for 2006-07, we recommend, first, funding 2 percent enrollment growth at UC and CSU and second, revising the current methodology for calculating the marginal cost of enrolling an additional student, in order to more accurately budget for these expenses.
March 15, 2006 - Presented to Mervyn Dymally, Chair of the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance.
March 9, 2006 - Presented to the Joint Assembly and Senate Education Committee.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes $110 million to fund 2.5 percent enrollment growth at the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). This amount would provide $10,103 in General Fund support for each additional student at UC and $6,792 for each additional student at CSU. (The proposed budget also provides $149 million for a 3 percent enrollment increase at the California Community Colleges.) In this write-up, we (1) review recent enrollment trends at UC and CSU, (2) analyze the Governor’s proposed enrollment growth and funding rates for 2006-07, and (3) recommend alternatives to those rates.
February 23, 2006 - For 2006-07, we recommend the Legislature at least maintain nonneedy students’ share of cost at the current-year level. Holding this share constant would entail modest fee increases of 3.5 percent at the University of California (UC), 3.0 percent at the California State University (CSU), and 7.0 percent at the California Community College (CCC). For a full-time undergraduate, this equates to an annual increase of $215 at UC, $76 at CSU, and $55 at CCC. These increases would generate $84 million in net new fee revenue. (Of this fee revenue, $35 million is generated at UC, and $1 million at Hastings, $24 million at CSU, and $24 million at CCC.) We also recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s “fee buyout” proposal because it distorts budgeting and creates the wrong incentives. Rather than provide a fee buyout, we recommend the Legislature provide the segments sufficient funding to meet identified needs.
February 23, 2006 - Operating University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) campuses on a year-round schedule-which more fully utilizes the summer term-is an efficient strategy for serving additional students with existing facilities. In this write-up, we (1) review actions the state has taken to promote summer expansion, (2) provide an update on UC’s and CSU’s efforts to expand summer operations, and (3) identify issues for the Legislature to consider in regard to further summer expansion.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s 2006-07 budget proposal includes $130 million to equalize per-student funding among community college districts. To the extent the Legislature wishes to fund priorities beyond workload increases, we recommend that the Legislature approve an augmentation sufficient to finish funding equalization to the 90th percentile, as called for in statute. However, we recommend the Legislature fund equalization contingent upon enactment of legislation providing an allocation method that preserves its equalization investment.
February 23, 2006 - We recommend the Legislature enact legislation that would restructure how the state administers grant and loan programs. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature authorize a single agency, with a single board and Executive Director, to administer both state grant and federal loan programs. We recommend the agency be structured as a nonprofit public benefit corporation but subject to stronger accountability requirements.
February 8, 2006 - We review infrastructure proposals in the Strategic Growth Initiative related to higher education. Presented to the Senate Education Committee. This summary revises our January 25, 2006 handout on the same topic.
January 24, 2006 - The Supplemental Report of the 2005 Budget Act directs the Legislative Analyst’s Office to identify “the range of structural options available to the Legislature for providing the state with access to federally guaranteed student loan services,” giving special focus to the organizational arrangements used by other states. The language explicitly precludes us from recommending adoption of any particular organizational arrangement. Given this directive, in this report, we: (1) describe how states administer the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP), (2) discuss the shortcomings of California’s existing organizational arrangement for administering FFELP, and (3) identify the range of organizational options available for administering FFELP.
January 17, 2006 - In adopting the Master Plan for Higher Education, the Legislature envisioned an efficient process for students to transfer from community college to the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). Thus, the plan calls for UC and CSU to accept all qualified community college students into their respective systems. This report reviews current transfer admission policies and identifies institutional barriers that can make the transfer process difficult for qualified students. We conclude that the current process lacks the systemwide standardization envisioned in the Master Plan, and recommend steps to make the transfer process more efficient and effective for students.
December 9, 2005 - Is Community College Enrollment Funding Keeping Pace With Demand? (revised December 2005) 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.
November 10, 2005 - Presented to the Community College Student Fee Policy Working Group.