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.
4,813 Publications Found
May 4, 2010 - In this video, Jennifer Kuhn discusses the new LAO report "Year-One Survey: Update on School District Finance and Flexibility."
May 4, 2010 - We surveyed public school districts in California to see how they are responding to various state and federal developments. In particular, the survey asked districts to report how they were responding to the newly granted flexibility to shift funds among, as well as away from, approximately 40 state-funded categorical programs. The survey also asked districts to report how they were using federal stimulus funding.
We found that categorical flexibility is having a positive impact on local decision making and that the majority of districts generally appear to be using freed-up categorical funds to support core classroom instruction.
Also, roughly two-thirds of the federal stimulus funds were used to minimize teacher layoffs and the remainder
used to backfill reductions to categorical programs and make various one-time purchases.
Finally, we lay out a package of recommendations that the Legislature could adopt in 2010-11 to provide school districts with additional flexibility.
(Short video introducing this report)
May 3, 2010 - Presented to: Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 5 On State Administration Hon. Denise Moreno Ducheny, Chair
May 3, 2010 - Through Chapter 7, Statutes of 2009, the Legislature has directed the Department of Health Care Services and the Department of Social Services to implement a statewide eligibility and enrollment determination process for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), Food Stamp, and Medi-Cal programs. The new statewide process is intended to achieve two primary outcomes: (1) providing better service to people applying for these programs and (2) lowering administrative costs through better use of technology. We identify possible improvements and cost-savings in the eligibility and enrollment process. We also recommend a general approach that the Legislature may wish to consider when making difficult decisions about how to proceed with Chapter 7.
April 27, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Health and Human Services
April 27, 2010 - In this short video, analyst Mark Whitaker discusses the LAO report "Evaluating the Sale-Leaseback Proposal: Should the State Sell its Office Buildings?"
April 27, 2010 - Recent legislation authorized the Department of General Services (DGS) to sell and then lease back 11 state-owned office properties. The sale-leaseback is designed to free up the state’s equity in the buildings to provide one-time revenue for addressing the state’s current budgetary shortfall. We estimate that the sale of buildings would result in one-time revenue to the state of between $600 million and $1.4 billion, but that annual leasing costs would eventually exceed ownership costs by approximately $200 million.
Over the lives of these buildings, we estimate the transaction would cost the state between $600 million and $1.5 billion. The Legislature will need to weigh how these costs compare to other alternatives for addressing the state’s budget shortfall. In our view, taking on long-term obligations—like the lease payments on these buildings—in exchange for one-time revenue to pay for current services is bad budgeting practice as it simply shifts costs to future years. Therefore, we encourage the Legislature to strongly consider other budget alternatives.
(Short video introducing this report)
April 22, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 21, 2010 - Presented at the Latina Action Day, April 21, 2010.
April 20, 2010 - Presented to: Assembly Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care
April 20, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 On Education Finance
April 14, 2010 - The state's major climate change legislation—commonly referred to as "AB 32"—is approaching a crossroads in its implementation. The state's AB 32 activities, currently carried out mainly by the Air Resources Board (ARB) but also by eleven other state agencies, will be shifting from the development of plans and regulations to program implementation and enforcement. Legislative oversight of the overall size and components of the AB 32 program budget is very important, particularly given this upcoming shift in the program's focus. In this budget-focused brief, we provide details of the Governor's AB 32 budget proposal and ARB's plan to pay for most of the AB 32 program administrative activities from a new fee. We also offer recommendations to ensure that (1) sufficient resources are devoted to economic analysis of AB 32 measures and (2) future AB 32 expenditures and fees are justified and set at appropriate levels.
April 13, 2010 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 On Education Finance
April 8, 2010 - Presented to Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 1 on Education