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.
4,786 Publications Found
May 21, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
May 21, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
May 19, 2012 - Presented to California School Boards Association
May 18, 2012 - In the May Revision of his 2012-13 budget proposal, the Governor identified a larger budget problem of $15.7 billion for state leaders to address in the coming weeks. While we find that the administration's economic and revenue forecasts are reasonable, we are concerned that the amount of property tax revenues from former redevelopment agencies (RDAs) may be substantially less than the May Revision assumes in 2011-12 and 2012-13. If so, this could increase the state's Proposition 98 school funding obligations and, therefore, the size of the budget problem above administration estimates. Moreover, the administration's $1.4 billion estimate for the amount of General Fund benefit that may be achieved in 2012-13 from transferring former RDAs' liquid cash assets to school districts is highly uncertain. We advise the Legislature to focus on adopting realistic and ongoing budget actions to continue the progress the state has made in reducing its annual operating, or structural, deficit. We describe and assess the administration's major May Revision proposals. In some cases, we offer alternative ways to achieve the savings targeted by the Governor. With regard to Proposition 98, we offer alternatives to both the Governor's basic budget plan and his trigger plan.
May 17, 2012 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
May 17, 2012 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
May 16, 2012 - In April 2012, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) released a report (referred to as the “blueprint”) on the administration’s plan to reorganize various aspects of CDCR operations, facilities, and budgets in response to the effects of the 2011 realignment of adult offenders, as well as to meet various federal court requirements (such as reducing the inmate population to meet specified population cap targets). In this brief we (1) summarize and assess the major aspects of the blueprint and (2) present alternative approaches that are available to the Legislature. In our view, much of the administration’s blueprint merits legislative consideration. However, the General Fund costs of the planned approach—in particular, an estimated $78 million in annual debt service—is a significant tradeoff. We find that the state could meet its facility requirements (including those for medical and mental health treatment) and specified population cap targets at much lower ongoing General Fund costs than proposed by the administration, potentially saving the state as much as a billion dollars over the next seven years.
May 11, 2012 - In an attempt to fundamentally reform the state’s transfer of students between the California Community Colleges (CCC) and the California State University (CSU) system, the Legislature and Governor enacted Chapter 428, Statutes of 2010 (SB 1440, Padilla). The legislation requires community colleges to create two-year associate degrees for transfer. Students who earn such a degree are automatically eligible to transfer to the CSU system as an upper-division (junior) student in a bachelor’s degree program. Our review finds that since the legislation was enacted, CCC and CSU have made some progress, but additional work needs to be done by both segments to achieve SB 1440's intended goals. For their part, community colleges need to increase the number of associate degrees for transfer they make available to students. It is incumbent on CSU, meanwhile, to maximize the number of academic programs to which these degrees can be applied. Toward these ends, we recommend the Legislature provide additional guidance and clarification to CCC and CSU on their responsibilities, as well as continued oversight to track their progress.
May 9, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review
May 8, 2012 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
May 3, 2012 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
May 2, 2012 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services Hon. Holly J. Mitchell, Chair
May 2, 2012 - This report summarizes findings from our third annual finance survey of California public school districts. Survey responses indicate that districts have experienced notable changes as a result of recent budget reductions, including a smaller workforce, larger class sizes, shorter school years, and less extensive programmatic offerings. Given the slow pace at which the economy is recovering, combined with uncertainty over the outcome of the November election, school districts indicate they are planning for additional reductions in 2012-13. Given these findings, we recommend the Legislature take immediate actions to assist districts in managing their fiscal challenges in 2012-13, as well as initiate long-term improvements to the K-12 funding and accountability systems.
May 1, 2012 - Presented to: Assembly Health Committee, Hon. William W. Monning, Chair and Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee, Hon. Henry T. Perea, Chair
April 30, 2012 - The FI$Cal project recently completed a procurement and selected the vendor who will build FI$Cal, the state's single, fully integrated financial information system. Project staff has submitted several documents to the Legislature, including a special project report that updates the project plans, a report to the legislature that includes information on the procurement, and a budget request for $89 million ($54 million General Fund) and 86 new positions in order to begin the first year of system development. This report (24 pages): (1) provides an extensive background on the project; (2) describes the innovative procurement process that state staff conducted to secure vendor services to build the FI$Cal system, including information on the procurement results; (3) reviews the FI$Cal project plans as explained in project documents; and (4) analyzes features of the project’s proposed plans and offers recommendations to the Legislature as it considers the budget request and the future of the system. Based upon our analysis of the proposed plans and review of project status, we believe that the benefits of proceeding with FI$Cal development at this time outweigh the costs of the project. In addition to the inherent benefits derived from having a modern, fully integrated financial information system for the state, proceeding with FI$Cal would also avoid substantial costs associated with replacing various individual financial management systems over the next several years. However, we recognize the tight budget times requiring the Legislature to make difficult decisions regarding programmatic reductions. Therefore, should the Legislature wish to proceed with the project, we offer alternative funding options that reduce the state’s reliance on General Fund monies to pay for the project in the short term. These options include the state's GS $Mart loan program, vendor financing, and advanced payments from the special funds for the first few years of system development. Additionally, we point out ways the project’s change management and staffing plans to implement FI$Cal statewide could be improved to reduce risk and maximize project benefits.