Legislative Analyst's Office
The 2003-04 Budget Bill:
|
As we have noted elsewhere in this document, the Governor's budget proposes significant reductions in most program areas. These proposed expenditure reductions reflect the Governor's choices and priorities. In many cases, the Legislature will have very different takes on how spending should be reduced. This was evident, for example, in its response to the administration's mid-year proposals, where the Legislature made significant changes.
Similarly, the Legislature is likely to disagree with many spending reduction proposals in the Governor's budget-year plan. As a result, it may need alternative savings proposals to adopt in place of those proposals. We provide such alternatives in both the Analysis of the 2003-04 Budget Bill and this piece:
These expenditure options are grouped in the following categories:
We have also referenced in the "Comments" section of those options where there is a more extensive discussion of them in the Analysis. Figure 1 lists the options for all program areas except for Proposition 98. Further below, we describe the particular circumstances involving Proposition 98 funding and list options related to this area in Figure 2.
|
||
Figure 1 Selected LAO
Budget Options |
||
(In Millions) |
||
Department/Program—Description |
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
Spending Reductions |
|
|
Department of Developmental
Services—Establish annual expenditure limits for regional
centers for selected services. |
$97.1 |
$119.4 |
Comments: This option would establish limits for the maximum
allowable units of specific types of services regional centers are
allowed to purchase for clients thereby slowing the rapid rate of growth
in this program. Regional centers would have to reduce the amount of
services provided to clients in order to implement this option. |
||
Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal—Impose
a moratorium on new adult day health centers. |
30.1 |
31.1 |
Comments: This would temporarily slow the rapid growth that has
been occurring in the number of adult day health centers. |
||
Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal—Rescind
continuous eligibility for children. |
76.2 |
175.2 |
Comments: This option would disenroll children who are no longer
eligible to receive Medi-Cal benefits. Administrative set-up would take
three months and implementation would phase-in after that. |
||
Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal—Exclude
over the counter drugs from coverage. |
7.6 |
7.8 |
Comments: Coverage is not required by federal government and such
an exclusion is similar to many private health coverage plans. This
option would exclude analgesics and cough and cold medications. |
||
Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal—For
newly enrolled disabled persons change default to managed care. |
0.8 |
0.9 |
Comments: This option could help improve the coordination of care
for disabled persons. |
||
Department of Veterans
Affairs—Close acute care hospital at Yountville veterans’
home. |
2.0 |
2.1 |
Comments: The state could close the underutilized acute care
hospital at the Yountville veterans’ home and provide care to veterans
at a lower cost through facilities in the surrounding community. |
||
$20.8 |
$20.8 |
|
Comments: Under this proposal, 11 high-cost counties would need to
reduce their cost per caseworker. |
||
Department of Social Services/CWS—Reduce frequency of group home visits from monthly to quarterly. |
7.5 |
7.7 |
Comments: This option would still leave the frequency of home
visits above the federal requirement which is semi-annual. |
||
Department of Social Services/CWS—Suspend emancipated foster youth stipend for two years. |
3.6 |
3.6 |
Comments: The emancipated foster youth stipend is not a core
component of the foster care program. |
||
Department of Social
Services/Foster Care—Suspend supplemental clothing allowance for two
years. |
3.3 |
3.3 |
Comments: The clothing allowance is not a core component of the
foster care program. |
||
Department of Child Support
Services/Local Administration—Suspend half of child support
program initiatives for two years. |
26.4 |
26.4 |
Comments: The initiatives that have been established over the last
two years are not part of the core collections program. |
||
University
of California (UC)—Eliminate General Fund support for
California State Summer School for Math and Science. |
1.6 |
1.6 |
Comments: Program serves high-achieving high school students. |
||
UC—Eliminate
General Fund support for Community Teaching Internships for Mathematics
and Science Programs. |
1.3 |
1.3 |
Comments: Programs provide stipends to juniors and seniors majoring
in math, science, and engineering, who work in local public schools as
teaching interns. Other state and federal programs provide similar
services. |
||
UC—Reduce
funding for Digital California Project by an additional 30 percent. |
6.6 |
6.6 |
Comments: Option leaves approximately $15 million for program. |
||
UC—Reduce
General Fund support for cooperative extension program by an additional
5 percent. |
3.0 |
3.0 |
Comments: Governor proposes a 10 percent reduction. |
||
$117.2 |
— |
|
Comments: Budget funds growth of 6.9 percent. (See Analysis
for detailed discussion of enrollment issues.) |
||
UC—Eliminate
augmentation for UC Merced. |
11.3 |
— |
Comments: UC Merced is not scheduled to open until fall 2004.
Approximately $10 million will still be available for start up
costs associated with the campus in 2003-04. |
||
UC—Eliminate General
Fund support for institutional aid programs. |
68.9 |
$68.9 |
Comments: Substantial growth in state Cal Grant programs has
weakened justification for separate institutional aid programs. (See Analysis
for detailed discussion of financial aid issues.) |
||
UC—Increase state’s
share of federal overhead reimbursements by 10 percent. |
35.0 |
35.0 |
Comments: The federal government reimburses UC for the overhead
costs of contracted research. The state funds much of this overhead, but
currently shares with UC these federal reimbursements. This option would
increase the state’s share from 55 percent to 65 percent, generating
an estimated General Fund savings of $35 million. |
||
California
State University (CSU)—Eliminate funding for enrollment growth
in 2003-04. |
150.9 |
150.9 |
Comments: Budget funds growth of 7.1 percent. (See Analysis for
detailed discussion of enrollment issues.) |
||
CSU—Eliminate General
Fund support for institutional aid programs. |
51.1 |
51.1 |
Comments: Substantial growth in state Cal Grant programs has
weakened justification for separate institutional aid programs. (See Analysis
for detailed discussion of financial aid issues.) |
||
Student Aid Commission (SAC)—Raise
GPA requirement by one-third point for Cal Grant entitlement programs. |
— |
50.9 |
Comments: Option would raise the minimum GPA requirement for the
Cal Grant A Entitlement program from 3.0 to 3.3 and for the Cal Grant B
Entitlement program from 2.0 to 2.3. The Legislature would need to act
now to achieve 2004‑05 savings. |
||
SAC—Reduce income
ceiling by $5,000 for Cal Grant entitlement programs. |
— |
19.4 |
Comments: Once reduced, the Cal Grant A and Cal Grant B income
ceilings still would be approximately 3 times and 1.6 times the federal
poverty level, respectively. Legislature would need to act now to
achieve 2004-05 savings. |
||
$3.0 |
$3.0 |
|
Comments: State has another, better structured financial aid
program that also encourages aspiring teachers to become fully
credentialed and work in low-performing schools. |
||
SAC—Eliminate Graduate
Assumption Program of Loans for Education. |
0.5 |
0.5 |
Comments: This is a highly specialized program that benefits few
students (only two warrants were redeemed in 2000‑01, for a total
cost of $4,000). |
||
Corrections—Increase
work credits for reception center inmates and involuntarily unassigned
inmates. |
70.0 |
68.0 |
Comments: This would extend day-for-day work credits to inmates who
receive less credit due to lengthy inmate processing and a lack of
sufficient work and academic slots at CDC institutions. (See Analysis
for detailed discussion of the work credit issue.) |
||
Corrections—Place
nonviolent elderly inmates on parole early. |
9.0 |
10.0 |
Comments: Research shows elderly inmates are two to three times
more expensive to incarcerate yet they have a high level of success on
parole. (See Analysis for detailed discussion of elderly inmate
issue.) |
||
Corrections—Discharge
nonviolent parolees early. |
35.0 |
48.0 |
Comments: This would allow parolees who have met the conditions of
their parole for either 6, 9, or 12 months to be discharged early.
Savings would range up to the amount shown depending on the length of
time required to meet condition of parole. |
||
Corrections—Place
nonviolent inmates on parole early. |
241.0 |
241.0 |
Comments:
This would allow certain inmates to be discharged from prison and placed
on parole up to 12 months early. This option would exclude “lifers,”
“striker,” and inmates whose offense is serious or violent. Savings
depend on how early inmates are placed on parole. |
||
Corrections—Remove
prison as an option for persons convicted of petty theft with a prior. |
15.0 |
34.0 |
Comments: “Petty theft with a prior” is currently prosecuted as
either a misdemeanor or a felony. This proposal would require the crime
to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, thereby reducing admissions to state
prison in the budget year and beyond. |
||
Youth Authority—Eliminate
the Gang Violence Reduction Program. |
1.7 |
1.7 |
Comments: This program, which provides grants to local law
enforcement agencies for gang prevention, is duplicative of crime
prevention programs administered by the Office of Criminal Justice
Planning, Department of Justice, and Department of Education. |
||
$0.9 |
$0.9 |
|
Comments: This program provides grants to counties for parenting
programs in county juvenile facilities and alternative schools. This
program is duplicative of a program administered by the Department of
Health Services. |
||
Local Government—Eliminate
the High-Tech Law Enforcement Grants |
18.5 |
18.5 |
Comments: This program provides grants to local law enforcement
agencies for equipment. The statewide objective of this program is
unclear. Law enforcement is largely a local function, and local funds
can be used to purchase equipment if it is a local priority. |
||
Local Government—Eliminate
the Rural County Law Enforcement Grants |
18.5 |
18.5 |
Comments: This program provides grants to rural county sheriffs for
equipment. The statewide objective of this program is unclear. Law
enforcement is largely a local function and local funds can be used to
purchase equipment if it is a local priority. |
||
Local Government—Eliminate
Citizen’s Options for Public Safety (COPS) grant program. |
116.3 |
116.3 |
Comments:
The COPS program provides grants to local law enforcement mostly for
personnel and equipment. Given that COPS funding represents a small
share of total local law enforcement expenditures, its impact on public
safety, if any, is likely to be relatively small. |
||
Local Government—Suspend
the Juvenile Justice grants program for one year pending evaluation
results. |
116.3 |
— |
Comments:
The Juvenile Justice grants provide funds to address service gaps in
county juvenile justice systems. This proposal would suspend funding for
one year pending completion of evaluations currently under-way.
Suspension should not adversely affect the programs because grant
recipients receive funding one year in advance of projected
expenditures. |
||
Natural Heritage Preservation
Tax Credit Program—Suspend award of new credits for two years. |
8.7 |
10.3 |
Comments: This program allows the donation of property to state or
local agencies or nonprofit organizations, and gives the donor a partial
state tax credit based on the assessed value of the property. The act
authorizes $100 million of tax credits through 2005. As of January
2002, a balance of approximately $60 million of credits remains to
be authorized by the Wildlife Conservation Board. The General Fund
fiscal impact of this option reflects a reduction in tax credits that
would otherwise be claimed if it were not for the suspension. |
||
Agency Secretaries—Eliminate
General Fund support for agencies. |
$7.0 |
$7.0 |
Comments:
The need for the agency level of state government is unclear. |
||
Arts
Council—Eliminate General Fund support for the department. |
12.0 |
12.0 |
Comments: None. |
||
Fair Employment and Housing—Eliminate department and
commission. |
12.6 |
12.6 |
Comments:
In the absence of state law, federal law would provide for regulation
and remedies for violations. |
||
Health and Human Services and
Teale Data Centers/Administrative Consolidation—Consolidate
the administrative functions of the two data centers. |
4.0 |
4.0 |
Comments: This option is discussed in detail in the “General
Government” chapter of the Analysis. |
||
Health and Human Services and Teale Data Centers/Server
Consolidation—Gain
administrative efficiencies by transferring some servers from
departments to the data centers. |
3.0 |
3.0 |
Comments: This option is discussed in detail in the “General
Government” chapter of the Analysis. |
||
Science
Center—Eliminate General Fund support for the department. |
13.1 |
13.1 |
Comments: None. |
||
Technology,
Trade, and Commerce Agency—Eliminate General Fund support for
various programs. |
16.5 |
16.5 |
Comments: Estimated savings assumes elimination of funding for the
Film Commission, small business loan guarantee program, and Office of
California-Mexico Affairs. |
||
Various/Nonessential
Commissions, Offices, and Departments—Eliminate nonessential
state operations. |
7.5 |
7.5 |
Comments: Estimated savings assumes the elimination of the Office
of Planning and Research, Office of Administrative Law, Little Hoover
Commission, and Commission on the Status of Women. |
||
Franchise Tax Board (FTB) and
Board of Equalization (BOE)—Consolidate certain district
office activities. |
1.8 |
1.8 |
Comments: Agencies would rely more on call centers to provide
public assistance. |
||
|
|
|
Department of Developmental Services—Draw down federal
funding for regional center services provided residents in intermediate
care facilities for the de-velopmentally disabled (ICF-DDs). |
$48.8 |
$52.4 |
Comments:
The state could draw down additional federal funds to offset the state
costs of services provided to these residents by modifying the rate
structure of the ICF-DDs and through other changes. |
||
Department
of Developmental Services—Assume higher Medicaid waiver
enrollment cap. |
49.5 |
56.7 |
Comments: The state can obtain greater federal fund support for
regional center services than is budgeted to the extent that federal
authorities will allow additional clients to be included in a Medicaid
waiver program. |
||
Department
of Health Services/Public Health—Move the Indian Health
Program from DHS to MRMIB. |
4.0 |
4.0 |
Comments: Consolidating this program with similar programs would
maintain overall funding at the current level by shifting support from
General Fund to federal funds. |
||
Department
of Health Services/Public Health—Move the Seasonal,
Agricultural and Migratory Worker Program from DHS to MRMIB. |
5.0 |
5.0 |
Comments: Consolidating this program with similar programs would
maintain overall funding at the current level by shifting support from
General Fund to federal funds. |
||
Department
of Health Services/Medi-Cal—Screen for veterans who could
receive VA health coverage. |
Undetermined
Savings |
|
Comments: Federal survey data suggest that there could be more
than 100,000 veterans on Medi-Cal (at a cost to the state of an
estimated $250 million annually) who could be eligible instead for
comprehensive health care from the Veterans Administration (VA). The
state could verify this data to determine if actions are warranted to
ensure they receive VA care, thereby reducing General Fund costs. |
||
|
|
|
Department of Health Services/Medi-Cal—Establish a
provider-specific fee to fund rate adjustments for long-term care
facilities. |
$39.6 |
$54.8 |
Comments:
This proposal would impose a fee on nursing homes to draw down
additional federal funds that would offset General Fund costs. |
||
Department of Social Services/Community Care Licensing—Remove
FBI fingerprinting fee exemption for small licensed providers (caring
for six children or less). |
3.2 |
3.2 |
Comments:
This creates parity among large (nonfee exempt) and small (fee exempt)
providers. The fee for FBI fingerprinting is $24 and there is an
additional $16 live-scan fee. |
||
Fund Shifts |
|
|
Department
of Developmental Services—Shift General Fund spending for the
Early Start program to Proposition 98 funds. |
$59.1 |
$66.2 |
Comments: This option would shift all of the state’s General
Fund cost of early intervention services to Proposition 98, thus
permitting a net reduction in non-Proposition 98 General Fund
expenditures. |
||
Department
of Health Services/Public Health—Shift financial
responsibility for the California Children’s Services Medical Therapy
Program to Proposition 98. |
37.0 |
39.0 |
Comments: This option would shift all of the state’s General
Fund cost of these nonmedical therapy services to Proposition 98,
thus permitting a net reduction in non-Proposition 98 General Fund
expenditures. |
||
Department
of Alcohol and Drug Programs—Redirect state and federal asset
forfeiture proceeds. |
10.0 |
10.0 |
Comments:
This option would use part of the proceeds taken from illegal narcotics
traffickers to help pay for substance abuse treatment programs. |
||
Departments
of Social Services and Education/Child Care—On a one-time
basis, replace state child care spending with federal Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families block grant funds transferred to the Child
Care and Development Fund block grant. |
400.0 |
— |
Comments: If child care is realigned, as proposed by the budget,
General Fund savings can be achieved by either (1) reducing the
amount of revenues transferred to the counties with the state
“recapturing” these revenues or (2) shifting other state
program costs to counties. If child care is not realigned, the cost of
maintaining current child care programs could be reduced by the $400
million proposed fund shift. |
||
General
Services/California Home Page—Outsource the home page and make
it self-sufficient. |
$3.0 |
$3.0 |
Comments: Other states have outsourced their home pages and cover
costs through the collection of fees for online services (primarily for
businesses). |
||
Food
and Agriculture/Pierce’s Disease—Eliminate General Fund
support for control of Pierce’s Disease. |
6.4 |
6.4 |
Comments: Fees already support a portion of the program’s costs.
The General Fund costs could be shifted to fees as well. |
||
Housing
and Community Development/Projects With Undisbursed Funds—Switch
funding from the General Fund to the housing bond. |
200.0 |
— |
Comments: This option is discussed in detail in the “General
Government” chapter of the Analysis. |
||
Loans/Transfers |
|
|
Department of Social Services/CalWORKs—Borrow county
performance incentive funds that remain unspent at the end of June 2003. |
$100.0 |
— |
Comments:
These funds may be borrowed at no interest costs. Any borrowed funds
would be added to the state’s current $394 million liability to the
counties. |
||
Off Highway Vehicle (OHV) Trust Fund—Loan excess funds to
the General Fund. |
40.0 |
— |
Comments:
The OHV fund balance at the end of 2003-04 is projected to be $49.1 million.
This balance can be loaned with a specific repayment date, but cannot be
transferred because it is a trust fund. Proposed loan would leave a
balance of $9.1 million. The OHV Trust Fund consists of service
fees for issuance of identification plates for OHV vehicles; user fees
for the state OHV recreation areas; fines; and specified transfers from
the Motor Vehicle Fuel Account. |
||
California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission (CDIAC)—Borrow
an additional $2.5 million from CDIAC’s special fund balance. |
— |
2.5 |
Comments:
Budget includes $3 million loan from this fund. An additional $2.5 million
would still leave a fund balance equal to roughly 40 percent of
CDIAC’s annual budget. |
||
|
Proposition 98 Budget Options
In the Analysis of the 2003-04 Budget Bill, we provide an alternative Proposition 98 funding proposal. For K-12 education, we recommend consolidating 62 programs into five categorical block grants. The amount of funding provided for the categorical block grants builds on the appropriation levels proposed by the Governor, which reflect an over 11 percent across-the-board reduction. We believe that school districts can absorb the reductions if they are given the flexibility to react to the reductions. If, however, the Legislature chooses not to consolidate categorical programs, we would suggest that they make targeted cuts to programs providing noncore educational services. In Figure 2, we provide a list of K-12 alternatives totaling over $1 billion in targeted cuts.
For the community colleges, we believe that the overall level of categorical funding reductions proposed by the Governor (25 percent) is reasonable given the fiscal circumstances. In the event that the Legislature wishes to restore funding for some of the specific categorical programs, we have identified over $200 million in substitute categorical reductions that the Legislature could adopt in order to maintain the same overall level of Proposition 98 savings proposed in the Governor's budget (see Figure 2). This combined list of K-12 and community college reduction options also provides the Legislature with opportunities to adjust the K-12 and community college split depending on legislative priorities.
|
||
Figure 2 Selected LAO
Budget Options |
||
(In Millions) |
||
Department/Program—Description |
2003-04 |
2004-05 |
Staff Development Buyout Days—Suspend
funding for one year. |
$202.0 |
$202.0 |
Comments: One-time reduction would help preserve core services. |
||
Mathematics and Reading
Professional Development Program—Eliminate funding. |
27.9 |
27.9 |
Comments: Short-term program would serve only 3 percent of
core subject matter teachers in 2003-04. The State Board of Education
has approved few training providers. |
||
Principal Training Program—Extend over next several years. |
28.7 |
-15.1 |
Comments: The State Department of Education (SDE) can fund all
existing commitments for 2003-04 using $15 million in 2001-02
carryforward funds. This option would increase costs in 2004-05. |
||
Administrator Training and
Evaluation Program—Eliminate funding. |
4.7 |
4.7 |
Comments: Program is more than 20 years old and serves same purpose
as new Principal Training program. |
||
Peer Assistance and Review—Eliminate
funding. |
76.6 |
76.6 |
Comments: No available evidence showing program effectiveness. |
||
Advanced Placement Challenge
Grant Program—Sunset one year early. |
3.2 |
— |
Comments: Program would otherwise terminate at end of 2003-04. |
||
National Board Certification
Program—Eliminate additional commitments. |
— |
5.0 |
Comments:
Provide budget-year funding to honor existing commitments. Other
recruitment strategies likely to be more cost-effective. |
||
Teacher Recruitment Centers—Eliminate
program. |
8.3 |
8.3 |
Comments: Various other entities recruit and assist aspiring
teachers. |
||
Year Round Operations Grant
Program—Phase out over next two years. |
14.2 |
16.5 |
Comments: Program no longer meets original intent. |
||
Charter School Facilities Grant Program—Eliminate
funding. |
2.3 |
2.3 |
Comments: Program no longer needed because Proposition 39
requires school districts to provide charter schools with sufficient
facilities. |
||
K-3
Class Size Reduction—Change ratio to 22 to 1 for high-income
schools. |
$219.0 |
$219.0 |
Comments: Change student teacher ratio to 22 to 1 for schools with
less than 50 percent free and reduced priced lunch eligible
students. Schools with at least 50 percent free and reduced lunch
eligible students continue at 20 to 1. |
||
College Preparation Partnership Program—Eliminate
funding. |
4.8 |
4.8 |
Comments: Duplicative and more restrictive than the Academic
Improvement and Achievement program (also administered by SDE). |
||
Local Arts Education Program—Eliminate
funding. |
5.7 |
5.7 |
Comments: Program provides supplemental services that could be
funded using other resources. |
||
Miller-Unruh Reading Program—Eliminate
funding. |
25.5 |
25.5 |
Comments: Current funding distribution promotes historic
inequities. |
||
School Improvement Program—Reduce
funds by 20 percent. |
85.8 |
85.8 |
Comments: Funds generally used for one-time purposes. These
purposes could be delayed. |
||
Civic Education—Eliminate
program. |
0.3 |
0.3 |
Comments: Program funds curriculum development by nonprofit entity
that is duplicative of state efforts. |
||
County Offices of Education—Do
not fund growth in county apportionments. |
22.3 |
22.3 |
Comments: County offices fund services similar to categorical
programs, which would receive no growth funding in 2003-04. |
||
Elementary School Intensive
Reading Program—Eliminate program. |
26.9 |
26.9 |
Comments: Services are duplicative of those provided through the
existing supplemental instruction programs. |
||
At Risk Youth (Angel Gate
Academy LAUSD)—Eliminate funding. |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Comments: The federal Department of Defense provides $4 million
in funding that covers a majority of the program’s expenses. |
||
Intensive Algebra Instruction Academies—Eliminate
program. |
11.2 |
11.2 |
Comments: Duplicative of services provided through existing
supplemental instruction programs. |
||
Gifted and Talented Education
(GATE)—Suspend the program for one year. |
49.8 |
49.8 |
Comments: Targets extra resources at highest-achieving students.
These students can be served within base resources. |
||
$13.1 |
$13.1 |
|
Comments: Program duplicative of services provided through the
School Safety and Violence Prevention Grant Program. |
||
Statewide Education Technology
Services—Eliminate program. |
2.3 |
2.3 |
Comments: Program services do not directly affect core classroom
services. |
||
Gang Risk Intervention
Program—Eliminate program. |
2.9 |
2.9 |
Comments: These services can be provided through existing safety
programs. |
||
School Library Materials—Suspend
program for one year. |
20.4 |
20.4 |
Comments: Suspend this program because of one-time nature of
expenses. |
||
Institute for Computer Technology—Eliminate
state funding. |
0.5 |
0.5 |
Comments: This program receives a significant amount of foundation
and grant funding. |
||
California Technology Assistance
Project—10 percent reduction in funding. |
1.3 |
1.3 |
Comments: Program does not directly affect students. |
||
Deferred Maintenance—Suspend
funding for one year. |
181.0 |
181.0 |
Comments: Existing law would continue to require that 3 percent
of districts’ unrestricted funds go to maintenance. |
||
9th Grade Class Size
Reduction—Eliminate funding. |
97.0 |
97.0 |
Comments: Schools with greatest need less likely to use program
be-cause of lack of qualified teachers. |
||
CCC—Eliminate
Part-Time Faculty Compensation funding. |
50.8 |
50.8 |
Comments: This program increases part-time faculty salaries with no
demonstrated linkage to improved student outcomes. |
||
CCC—Eliminate
Part Time Faculty Office Hours funding. |
3.9 |
3.9 |
Comments: Office hours can be negotiated as part of collective
bargaining, without categorical funding. |
||
CCC—Terminate
Partnership for Excellence program. |
164.5 |
164.5 |
Comments: Program is due to sunset at end of 2004 calendar year.
Has shown little evidence of progress in reaching performance targets. |
||
|