Use either the form or links on the side to filter the list of publications. Browse other LAO products using the links at the bottom of the sidebar.
4,809 Publications Found
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget assumes that proposed authority for the administration to reduce departmental budgets during the year will decrease overall state costs by $258 million. Since 2002-03, enacted budgets have included similar provisions. In reality, however, the full magnitude of these savings is rarely achieved. We recommend that the Legislature delete the proposed authority. The administration should identify any specific proposed savings in departmental budgets during the spring budget process.
February 23, 2006 - The Secretary of State (SOS) has provided few details on the department’s proposed implementation of HAVA. Based on the information received to date, however, we have a number of serious concerns with the agency’s approach. Delays by SOS over the past year in implementing components of the state’s HAVA plan have impaired counties’ ability to acquire and install HAVA-compliant equipment for the upcoming June 2006 primary election. In addition, SOS’s proposal for a statewide voter registration database exposes the General Fund to millions of dollars in costs, despite the state having received over $350 million in HAVA funds. We withhold recommendation on SOS’s HAVA expenditures pending the submittal of detailed justifications.
February 23, 2006 - Our annual detailed examination of the Budget Bill based on the Governor's Budget. It includes hundreds of findings and recommendations related to education, health and social services, criminal justice, transportation, resources, capital outlay, information technology, and local government.
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.