To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
May 5, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 On State Administration Hon. Warren Furutani, Chair
May 5, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 On State Administration Hon. Warren Furutani, Chair
May 3, 2010 - Through Chapter 7, Statutes of 2009, the Legislature has directed the Department of Health Care Services and the Department of Social Services to implement a statewide eligibility and enrollment determination process for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), Food Stamp, and Medi-Cal programs. The new statewide process is intended to achieve two primary outcomes: (1) providing better service to people applying for these programs and (2) lowering administrative costs through better use of technology. We identify possible improvements and cost-savings in the eligibility and enrollment process. We also recommend a general approach that the Legislature may wish to consider when making difficult decisions about how to proceed with Chapter 7.
April 27, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services
April 20, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care
March 26, 2010 -
Health and social services (H&SS) expenditures account for about 29 percent of General Fund spending in California. As part of his plan to bring revenues and expenditures into balance, the Governor’s budget proposes major reductions and program eliminations in the area of H&SS. In this report we describe spending and program requirements as well as key considerations for evaluating budget solutions. We also identify strategies for achieving savings in a restricted environment.
This report and the companion piece The 2010-11 Budget: Health and Social Services Budget Primer provide a framework for policymakers as they make very difficult budget decisions in health and social services.
March 26, 2010 - Addresses the 2010-11 Budget through a Special Session brief, a summary of Social Services findings and recommendations, and the companion reports Health and Social Services Budget Primer and Health and Social Services—A Restricted Environment.
March 26, 2010 - Addresses the 2010-11 Budget through a Special Session brief, a summary of Health findings and recommendations, and the companion reports Health and Social Services Budget Primer and Health and Social Services—A Restricted Environment.
March 26, 2010 -
In 2009-10, expenditures for health and social services programs in California are estimated to be about $25 billion or 29 percent of statewide General Fund spending. Spending on health and social services programs accounts for 36 percent of total spending when special funds, federal funds, and the General Fund are included. This primer provides an understanding of the overall health and social services expenditures, the workings of major health and social services programs, spending trends in major programs, and the major funding sources for health and social services programs.
This primer and the companion piece The 2010-11 Budget: Health and Social Services—A Restricted Environment provide a framework for policymakers as they make very difficult budget decisions in health and social services.
March 24, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 On Health and Human Services Hon. Dave Jones, Chair
March 17, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment Hon. Bill Monning, Chair Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 4 Hon. Juan Arambula, Chair Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
March 11, 2010 - Presented to: Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 4 On State Administration Hon. Mark DeSaulnier, Chair
March 9, 2010 - Presented to: Senate Human Services Committee Hon. Carol Liu, Chair
February 22, 2010 - In this short video, analyst Lisa Murawski discusses the LAO Report "Maximizing Federal Funds for HIV/AIDS: Improving Surveillance and Reporting."
February 22, 2010 - In this report, we identify significant problems in the state’s ability to accurately track AIDS–related cases. These gaps in the surveillance database weaken the state’s ability to use it as an effective tool to track and respond to trends in the disease. These problems also affect the state’s ability to collect additional federal funding that could otherwise be available to offset the cost of state AIDS programs. We recommend two actions that the state could take: First, have the state Office of AIDS (OA) take steps to ensure that persons receiving services through state–supported programs are reflected in the HIV surveillance database. Second, require electronic reporting by laboratories that must provide HIV data to local health departments. These changes, our analysis indicates, would make the state’s surveillance database more complete, improve the state’s knowledge of disease trends, and make the state more competitive for federal AIDS funding.