Addressing Chronic Vacancies in Prison Mental Health Care

Feb 23, 2026 - Those departments may seek increases in compensation to ensure their pay remains competitive with CDCR —potentially adding still more costs to the state. Extending Licensing Exemptions to Out‑of‑State Licensed Providers State Licensing Policies Limit Pool of Potential Providers.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5134

The 2026-27 Budget: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Feb 23, 2026 - Adding More Licensing Exemptions for Those Who Work at Prisons. Currently, providers with out ‑of ‑state licenses are required to obtain a California license to work in CDCR, though some may use their out ‑of ‑state license on a temporary basis.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5137

Retail Theft in California: Looking Back at a Decade of Change

Jun 12, 2025 - Added Time for Certain Theft or Property Damage Felonies. Chapter  174 of 2024 (S B  1416 , Newman), Chapter  220 of 2024 (A B  1960 , Rivas), and Proposition  36 all added similar language to state law, which allows for increased sentences for people convicted of felonies in which the amount of property that was stolen or damaged is over $50,000,  with longer enhancement terms as the dollar amounts increase.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5055

The 2025-26 Budget: Department of Justice

Feb 19, 2025 - For example, one potential funding option discussed in the report was to increase the specific fee added when individuals are convicted of criminal offenses which generates the revenue deposited into the DNA Identification Fund.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4972

The 2025-26 Budget: Update on Implementation of New Firearm and Ammunition Tax

Feb 19, 2025 - Subject to Legislative Appropriation $50.0 CDE Program or activities (such as physical security improvements and school ‑based mental health services) addressing risk factors for gun violence affecting K ‑12 students. 3 15.0 JC Court ‑based firearm relinquishment grant program to facilitate removal of firearms and ammunition from individuals who become prohibited from owning or
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4970

The 2023-24 Budget: Increased Federal Authority For State Crisis Intervention Program

Feb 22, 2023 - If the court finds that there is probable cause that such a person still has firearms, it must order that the firearms be removed. Finally, Proposition  63 authorized local governments or state agencies to charge a fee to reimburse them for certain costs in implementing the measure (such as those related to the removal or storage of firearms).
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4697

The 2024-25 Budget: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Feb 22, 2024 - This is because, in addition to reducing the number of beds in operation, capacity reductions remove physical space (such as classrooms or workshops) that is used for assignments. The  administration argues such a reduction is a concern because assignments provide people in prison with a meaningful way to occupy their time.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4852

Assessing Community College Programs at State Prisons

Jul 1, 2024 - Given that the results of the recommended data and studies have the potential to notably improve legislative decision ‑making on prison postsecondary education policy and programs moving forward, we believe the added administrative workload is warranted.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4913

The 2022-23 California Spending Plan: Judiciary and Criminal Justice

Sep 26, 2022 - Some of the major adjustments include the following: $40 million one time for a court-based program to enforce court orders removing firearms and ammunition from those prohibited from possessing them —with the prioritization of prohibitions stemming from domestic violence and gun violence restraining orders as well as other civil orders.
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4625

The California State Bar: Assessment of Proposed Disciplinary Case Processing Standards

Jan 6, 2023 - As  shown in Figure  12 , if the Legislature chooses the same approach as the State Bar in which idle time periods of a certain duration are mathematically removed, selecting one of these less aggressive standards —in which times periods of (1)  90 days or more or (2)  120  days or more, respectively, are mathematically removed —would still likely result in
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4655