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.
4,800 Publications Found
February 6, 2017 - In 2013-14, the state created the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) for county offices of education (COEs). With this funding, COEs are required to (1) provide alternative education to certain at-risk students and (2) oversee school districts’ budgets and academic plans. COEs may use any funding available after completing these tasks on optional activities that reflect their own priorities. We have concerns that providing funding directly to COEs for alternative education and optional activities detaches school districts from the decision making process of how to best serve their students. To address these concerns, we recommend the Legislature shift that funding to districts and allow them to contract with COEs (or other providers) for services. Because oversight of school districts’ budgets and academic plans likely is both more effective and efficient when performed at the regional rather than state level, we recommend the Legislature fund COEs directly for these activities. Because our recommendations signify major changes in the way the state funds COEs, we recommend the Legislature phase in the new funding model over several years.
(2/17/17 -- Corrected district services funding for district in county on figure 5.)
February 3, 2017 - In this web post, we recommend that the Legislature reject the Governor’s proposal to increase the CDIAC’s expenditure authority by $200,000. We find that there is insufficient justification for the higher budget expenditure authority.
February 3, 2017 - The Governor proposes $799,000 from various special funds on an ongoing basis and five permanent positions to continue to support STO’s website and data sharing efforts. We recommend approving funding for these positions on a two-year limited-term rather than on a permanent basis.
February 3, 2017 - This analysis includes reviews of the following budget proposals for DGS in the Governor’s 2017-18 budget plan:
February 3, 2017 - Chapter 496 of 2011 (SB 617, Calderon) made significant changes to the way California analyzes and reviews major regulations under the state's Administrative Procedures Act (APA). These changes were intended to promote regulations that achieve the Legislature's policy goals in a more cost‑effective manner. In this report, we provide a brief description of California's regulatory process, the potential value of regulatory analysis, and the recent changes made by SB 617. Although there have been some improvements in recent years, we identify some significant limitations that still remain. We provide recommendations that are aimed at addressing these limitations by ensuring that the potential effects of regulations are thoroughly analyzed and regulators are implementing the Legislature's policy direction in the most cost-effective manner.
January 31, 2017 - In this web post, we provide an overview of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the level of funding proposed for the department in the Governor’s 2017-18 budget. We also assess and make recommendations on two specific DOJ budget proposals: (1) a one-time $5 million unallocated General Fund reduction and (2) a $45 million funding increase related to Proposition 56 revenues.
January 31, 2017 - The Supplemental Report of the 2016-17 Budget Act directs our office to estimate the cost of a new state financial aid program intended to eliminate the need for students to take on college debt. We estimate such a program for resident undergraduate students attending public colleges in California would cost $3.3 billion annually, on top of all existing gift aid. Adding certain eligibility requirements to the program could reduce these costs notably. For several reasons, the new program likely would reduce but not eliminate student loan debt. Additionally, the new program could create behavioral changes not factored into our estimate.
January 30, 2017 - Presented to: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
January 27, 2017 - The primary goal of California’s criminal justice system is to provide public safety by deterring and preventing crime, punishing individuals who commit crime, and reintegrating criminals back into the community. The state’s major criminal justice programs include the court system, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Governor’s budget for 2017-18 proposes total expenditures of $16.1 billion for judicial and criminal justice programs. In this post, we describe recent trends in state spending on criminal justice and provide an overview of the major changes in the Governor’s proposed budget for criminal justice programs in 2017-18.
January 25, 2017 - The Governor’s budget for 2017-18 proposes a $280,000 General Fund augmentation to counties for increased trial court security levels resulting from a separate proposal to reallocate four existing vacant trial court judgeships to trial courts with greatest judicial need as of January 1, 2018. We recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s proposal due to a lack of justification that the proposed funding is needed.
January 24, 2017 - Presented to Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
January 24, 2017 - Presented to Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
January 24, 2017 - Presented to: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
January 23, 2017 - We reviewed the proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) for Bargaining Unit 8 (Firefighters). State Bargaining Unit 8’s current members are represented by Cal Fire Local 2881. This review is pursuant to Section 19829.5 of the Government Code.
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.