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.
4,902 Publications Found
September 21, 2004 - This report examines various options for funding higher education enrollment at different rates depending on type of instruction, class level, and other factors.
August 27, 2004 - On August 3, 2004, the California Performance Review (CPR) released its report on reforming California's state government, with the aim of making it more efficient and more responsive to its citizens. This report provides our initial comments on the CPR report. Specifically, we: (1) provide an overview of its reorganization framework and other individual recommendations, (2) discuss the savings it assumes from its major proposals, and (3) raise key issues and considerations relating to CPR's various proposals.
August 23, 2004 - Presented to Conference Committee on August 23, 2004.
August 6, 2004 - In a letter to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee dated August 3, 2004, we raise a number of significant concerns about the proposed allocation of state bond and other funds for a conservation-related transaction concerning the Hearst Ranch property in San Luis Obispo County. In particular, we find that the level of resource protection provided by the transaction needs strengthening and greater certainty. We make recommendations to improve the state's oversight of the enforcement of the terms of the transaction to ensure that the state's significant investment is adequately protected in perpetuity.
July 28, 2004 - A summary of the 2004-05 Budget Bill (SB 1113, as amended) considered by the Assembly on July 28, 2004.
July 7, 2004 - We did not publish a Major Features report in 2004. The links above will open instead the California Spending Plan, 2004-05, published in September, 2004, which provides similar information in more detail.
June 28, 2004 - This report summarizes a recent report measuring how well the state's universities are meeting their eligibility targets as called for in the state's Master Plan.
June 23, 2004 - Faculty research generates substantial overhead revenue for UC, and a portion of this revenue is intended to pay for the construction of faculty research facilities. We find, however, that most of this research facility revenue is being used by UC for other purposes. Since hundreds of millions of dollars a year are available to UC to fund construction of faculty research facilities, we recommend the Legislature treat faculty research facilities in the same manner as it treats other higher education facilities that can be "self-funded." We recommend faculty research facilities be funded by reimbursements using nonstate funds rather than General Fund-backed bonds. This will free up hundreds of millions of dollars of scarce state resources for other high priority projects in higher education or other program areas.
June 10, 2004 - Presented To Budget Conference Committee on June 2, 2004
June 10, 2004 - Presented to Joint Legislative Budget Committee on June 9, 2004.
June 1, 2004 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee on June 1, 2004.
June 1, 2004 - Presented to Assembly Higher Education Committee on June 1, 2004.
May 24, 2004 - The California Youth Authority is confronted with various challenges that call for a fresh examination of its facility needs: (1) an aging infrastructure with housing-related and other deficiencies; (2) demands for special facilities, as a result of state, federal, and court mandates to deliver mental health and education services to wards; and (3) facility overcapacity as a result of a significant decline in the ward population. Given these concerns, we believe that a fundamental reassessment of the department’s facilities—achieved through the development of a facilities master plan—could lead to a significant improvement in the way the department’s infrastructure needs are met.
May 24, 2004 - The administration's local government proposal would make far-reaching changes to state-local finance. Our review of the proposal indicates that it would greatly increase the stability of local finance and increase accountability in the mandate process. We also find, however, that the proposal locks in place the current flawed state-local fiscal structure, imposes added fiscal stress on many local governments, and is not structured in a fashion that addresses long-term state fiscal goals. For the Legislature's consideration, we provide various recommendations to bring the proposal into greater alignment with legislative goals and state fiscal objectives.