February 15, 2023 - This brief analyzes the Governor’s budget proposals for the University of California. It covers the Governor’s proposals relating to core operations, enrollment, capital projects, and new transfer requirements.
November 7, 2024 - Beginning operations 20 years ago, the University of California (UC) Merced has grown to a campus of approximately 9,100 students and 2,500 faculty, staff, and student employees. In this report, we explore major campus developments related to UC Merced's enrollment, student outcomes, faculty and staff, facilities, and finance. We then assess the extent to which UC Merced has fulfilled certain key objectives, including raising educational and economic outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley. We conclude the report by identifying key state-level takeaways from the UC Merced experience that could help inform the Legislature as it undertakes future higher education planning.
February 17, 2000 - Analysis of the 2000-01 Budget Bill, Capital Outlay Chapter
February 27, 2015 - In this report, we provide an overview of the Governor’s higher education budget. We then review the segments' performance in certain key areas and assess the degree to which the segments require enrollment growth funding, base funding increases, and facilities funding. We find the segments have improved performance in some areas but additional improvement is needed. We find little to warrant additional enrollment growth at UC and CSU, and available data indicate CCC likely will not use all the growth funding provided in 2014-15. We recommend against unallocated budget increases, instead recommending that the Legislature link base increases to a cost-of-living adjustment and any additional increases to specified state priorities. We review several facility proposals and make various related recommendations, including recommending the Legislature establish state facility priorities and require the segments to submit a report describing how they plan to eliminate their maintenance backlogs.
February 20, 2020 - In this brief, we analyze the Governor’s proposals relating to UC medical education. After providing an overview of medical education, we first analyze the Governor’s proposals to expand enrollment and build a new academic building at the UC Riverside School of Medicine. We then analyze the Governor’s proposal to expand enrollment and services at the UCSF Fresno branch campus.
March 5, 2021 - In this post, we focus on university capital outlay projects. We first provide background on university capital financing and project review. We then review capital outlay proposals for the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). Next, we raise some concerns with the previously authorized UC Merced medical school project and make an associated recommendation. We end the post by offering several other recommendations intended to strengthen legislative oversight of university projects.
January 29, 2009 - The Governor’s budget proposal includes $11.5 billion in General Fund support as well as $5.7 billion in other core funding for higher education in 2009-10. The proposed budget would increase university fees by almost $300 million while it would reduce state financial aid programs by $88 million. It also could reduce higher education enrollment by tens of thousands of students. We offer alternatives that would increase funding for state financial aid programs, increase enrollment targets well above the Governor's levels, and better account for student fee revenue.
February 20, 2020 - In this report, we analyze the Governor’s higher education budget proposals. Similar to last year, these proposals are wide ranging—including large base increases; targeted increases for apprenticeship programs and food pantries; one-time initiatives relating to extended education programs, work-based learning, faculty diversity, and animal shelters; and many facility projects.
December 18, 2019 - California operates two public university systems: (1) the University of California (UC), consisting of 10 campuses, and (2) the California State University (CSU), consisting of 23 campuses. The Legislature faces many pressures to increase funding for UC and CSU in 2020‑21. This report examines these university cost pressures, assesses the state’s capacity to fund some of them, and identifies options for expanding budget capacity to fund additional cost pressures.
February 2, 2022 - This brief analyzes the Governor’s major budget proposals for the University of California, with a focus on base support, enrollment, and deferred maintenance. Also, see our companion piece to this report: The 2022‑23 Budget: UC Climate-Related Proposals.
January 19, 2017 - Chapter 22 of 2015 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) requires our office to assess whether the state should construct new University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) campuses, taking a statewide perspective for UC and a regional perspective for CSU. In making our assessment, the legislation requires our office to consider a variety factors, including enrollment demand and capacity. We project university enrollment over the next eight years based on existing state policy and growth in the state's public high school graduates. In 2024-25, we project UC will enroll 11,000 more resident students (5 percent) than in 2016-17. We find the system could accommodate at least triple that amount of growth by increasing use of its existing facilities and constructing new facilities according to its already developed long-range plans. We project CSU enrollment in 11 regions across the state, with projected growth totaling 15,000 students (a 4 percent increase) in 2024-25 over 2016-17 levels. We find the system could accommodate more than 200,000 additional students by increasing use of its existing facilities and constructing new facilities according to already developed long-range plans. Given UC and every CSU region could accommodate projected enrollment through current or planned capacity, we conclude that new campuses are not warranted at this time.
December 2, 2009 -
The state’s public higher education segments periodically create new degree programs and schools, and each segment has internal procedures for reviewing and authorizing them. State law delegates the state’s oversight of proposals to the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) but their role is only advisory and limited to certain proposals. In 2007 CPEC determined that a new law school proposed for University of California (UC) Irvine was unnecessary and duplicative. The opening of the new law school this fall despite CPEC’s objections calls into question the ability of the state’s approval process to prevent unnecessary or nonpriority programs and schools. In this report, we examine a number of new programs and schools that have been approved in the last few years to determine the efficacy of the state’s approval process. We conclude that there are several structural changes that are needed to improve the approval process including (a) measuring supply and demand in major fields, (b) identifying the extent to which proposals fit with the state's priorities and resources, and (c) increasing oversight from the Legislature.
(Short video summary)
November 8, 2012 - In recent years, the state has entered into public-private partnerships (P3) to finance, design, construct, operate, and maintain two state infrastructure projects in order to achieve benefits that they might not have obtained under a more traditional procurement approach. In this report, we find that the P3 practices of these recent projects are not necessarily aligned with the P3 best practices identified in research. Based on our findings, we identify several opportunities for the state to further maximize its benefits when deciding to procure a state infrastructure project as a P3. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature (1) specify P3 project selection criteria in statute, (2) require a comparative analysis of a range of procurement options in order to better determine which procurement option would most effectively benefit the state, (3) require the existing Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission (PIAC) to approve state P3 projects, and (4) modify the structure and responsibilities of PIAC to better provide state expertise on P3s.