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.
1,015 Publications Found
October 13, 2011 - Since 2008, the cost of providing unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in many states has exceeded available resources. As a result, by 2010 the UI funds in 32 states were insolvent, forcing those states to obtain loans from the federal government to continue payment of UI benefits. In this report, we conduct a comparative analysis of the UI programs in all 50 states and Washington D.C. to provide context for the Legislature in considering potential solutions to California's UI insolvency. Our analysis finds that California’s UI program pays comparatively lower weekly benefits, but pays these weekly benefits for a longer duration and to a relatively larger caseload. As a result, California has comparatively higher total program costs. To the extent the Legislature desires, California’s comparatively high cost structure could be mitigated by changing its UI eligibility and benefits duration policies. However, regardless of UI policies, California’s UI program is likely to have a higher UI cost structure than the average U.S. state as a result of its comparatively worse labor market.
September 28, 2011 - Historically, counties had the primary responsibility for (1) funding the trial courts, (2) constructing and maintaining court facilities, and (3) employing most court employees. However, beginning in 1997, the Legislature adopted a series of statutory changes that shifted or realigned each of these responsibilities from the counties to the state. The Legislature sought to create a trial court system that would be more uniform in terms of standards, procedures, and access to justice. Our analysis indicates, however, that a number of existing barriers have prevented the trial court realignment from fully achieving the expressed goals and objectives of the Legislature. We believe that the Legislature should seek to eliminate these barriers and provide the state with greater control and responsibility over trial courts. We recommend that the state assume true operational control over many critical aspects of trial court operations for which it already has financial responsibility, such as trial court employee classifications and benefits. We also propose that the state establish a comprehensive trial court performance assessment program and establish a more efficient division of responsibilities between the Administrative Office of the Courts and trial courts.
August 25, 2011 - California’s infrastructure includes a diverse array of capital facilities across many program areas. Additionally, the state provides funding for local public infrastructure such as K-12 schools and local streets and roads. Over the last decade, infrastructure costs have taken up a larger share of the state’s budget, yet the state’s infrastructure demands continue to grow. In this report, we summarize the state’s infrastructure spending and provide ideas for planning and funding future infrastructure. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature establish a more coordinated process for financing infrastructure. Throughout the report, we also highlight ways the state could manage infrastructure to reduce state costs such as prioritizing the state’s infrastructure investments to the most critical and appropriate programs, adopting strategies to reduce infrastructure demand, and identifying additional revenue to support infrastructure.
August 19, 2011 - As part of the 2011-12 budget plan, the Legislature enacted a major shift—or “realignment”—of state program responsibilities and revenues to local governments. In total, the realignment plan provides $6.3 billion to local governments to fund various criminal justice, mental health, and social services programs in 2011-12, and ongoing funds for these programs annually thereafter. We recommend the Legislature address a few pressing implementation issues before this legislative session ends. We also identify a series of more extensive issues that we recommend the Legislature address in early 2012, such as developing local funding formulas with an eye towards the long term, promoting local accountability, and simplifying the plan’s extensive network of accounts and subaccounts.
August 5, 2011 - On May 23, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in a lawsuit against the state involving prison overcrowding. Specifically, the court upheld the ruling of a federal three–judge panel requiring the state to reduce overcrowding in its prisons to 137.5 percent of its “design capacity” within two years. The court’s decision will almost certainly result in some of the most dramatic changes to the state’s prison system in decades. The realignment plan that the Legislature recently enacted could go a long way toward meeting the court’s requirements. Our analysis, however, indicates that the realignment plan alone is unlikely to reduce overcrowding sufficiently within the two–year deadline set by the court. This indicates to us that, as the U.S. Supreme Court suggested, a somewhat longer timeframe is warranted. In addition, we recommend that the Legislature consider how the overcrowding reduction will affect the types of prison facilities California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has planned to build. Finally, we recommend that the Legislature provide CDCR with more flexibility to use contract beds in order to manage overcrowding, particularly in the near term. Addressing these issues would help to better plan for a dramatically reduced state inmate population within the state’s current fiscal situation.
July 7, 2011 - Beginning in 2008, the Unemployment Insurance (UI) funds of many states, including California’s, were under stress and soon became insolvent. Many states sought loans from the federal government. As of June 2011, California’s outstanding federal loan totaled over $10 billion. Three federal proposals have recently been introduced to address the insolvency issue. All three would improve the solvency of California’s UI fund and two would likely eliminate California’s UI fund deficit by 2016. Regardless of whether Congress acts, we recommend that the Legislature ensure implementation of a long–term solvency plan by 2014. If federal reforms are enacted, it is likely that no additional action by the Legislature will be necessary. However, if no federal reforms are enacted, it will be critically important for the Legislature to adopt its own long–term solvency plan. We recommend that the Legislature consider an approach which includes both increased employer contributions and decreased benefits for UI claimants.
June 2, 2011 - Pursuant to Chapter 1124, Statutes of 2002 (AB 3000, Committee on Budget).
May 10, 2011 - In 2010-11, several County Offices of Education (COEs) reported difficulties balancing their court school budgets. Partly due to the concerns they raised, the Supplemental Report of the 2010-11 Budget Act directed our office to (1) assess whether county court schools have access to an appropriate array of categorical funds and (2) compare court school funding with funding rates for other alternative programs. Our review indicates that COEs, which allot funding to county court schools, generally have access to an appropriate array of categorical funds. Although access to categorical funds does not appear to be a problem, we did identify local cost pressures that could explain why some COEs are having difficulty balancing their court school budgets. While the state’s options for affecting these local decisions are limited, the state could take actions to reduce cost pressures on court schools. We also recommend the state standardize per-pupil funding rates across its alternative education funding system, which could also help COEs manage their court school budgets.
May 10, 2011 - In November 2008, voters approved Proposition 1A, which allows the state to sell $9 billion in general obligation bonds to partially fund the development and construction of the high-speed rail system. In addition, the state has received roughly $3 billion from the federal government for its construction. We describe a number of problems that pose threats to the high-speed rail project’s successful development as envisioned by Proposition 1A and make several recommendations. We recommend that the Legislature direct the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) to renegotiate the terms of the federal funding awarded to the state by the Federal Rail Administration. We also recommend that the Legislature pass legislation this session that shifts the responsibility for the day-to-day and strategic development of the project from HSRA to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
May 2, 2011 - In this report, we investigate the competing claims made in support and opposition of combining smaller school districts into larger districts. We find some small districts’ spending patterns and student performance differ slightly from larger districts, but very small districts have notable and troubling differences. We also find that substantial funding advantages and certain disincentives keep small districts from opting for consolidation. Our analysis suggests the state should not pursue a one-size-fits all approach for district configuration or require all small school districts to consolidate, but it does suggest the state should remove existing disincentives. To increase efficiencies and accountability, we also recommend the state increase the minimum size for districts to at least 100 students.
March 15, 2011 - Chapter 283, Statutes of 2009 (AB 1295, Fuller), requires our office to report by March 15, 2011 on the progress of the California Community Colleges (CCC) and California State University (CSU) in developing nursing education pathways in time for the 2012 13 academic year. We find that CCC and CSU are generally on track to implement the requirements of AB 1295, though further work is needed. Our report offers some specific suggestions for systemwide changes intended to promote seamless transfer of nursing students from CCC to CSU.
February 14, 2011 - In this report we review how the Master Plan envisioned the California State University (CSU) as part of the state’s higher education system, and assess how the university has carried out its role in the face of changing enrollment demand and funding limitations. We conclude that CSU’s regional role is an important component of the state’s higher education system, and recommend that the Legislature take steps to protect that focus in the face of enrollment pressures and efforts by some campuses to become more selective. Specifically, we recommend that the Legislature (1) formalize a regional education role for CSU in statute, (2) codify its expectations for CSU’s eligibility pool, and (3) direct CSU to adjust its enrollment policies accordingly.
February 8, 2011 - California’s expansive use of redevelopment has engendered significant controversy. Program advocates contend that it is a much needed tool to promote economic development in blighted areas. Program critics counter that it diverts property tax revenues from core government services and increases state education costs. The Governor’s budget includes a plan for dissolving redevelopment agencies and distributing their funds (above the amounts necessary to pay outstanding debt) to other local agencies. We find that the administration’s proposal has merit, but suggest recognizing all the redevelopment revenues as property taxes.
Note: In a letter dated February 16th, 2011 we responded to questions regarding our analysis of the California Redevelopment Association’s study of the economic effects of redevelopment included in this report.February 7, 2011 - Since 2007-08, state support for K-12 education has dropped notably, though this reduction has been partly offset by one-time federal aid and state K-12 payment deferrals. Per-pupil programmatic funding was down 3.7 percent in 2009-10 and 5 percent in 2010-11. To help school districts manage this reduction, the state temporarily removed the strings associated with roughly 40 categorical programs and eliminated various other requirements. We surveyed school districts to gather information regarding how they were being affected by recent federal and state actions. Most importantly, the survey responses show that many districts: (1) have reserved some federal Ed Jobs for 2011–12; (2) would find an additional deferral in 2011–12 more difficult to accommodate; (3) have benefited notably from existing flexibility provisions and desire additional flexibility; and (4) already have increased class sizes notably, instituted furlough days, laid off some teachers, and shortened the school year. Given these survey findings, we identify several ways the Legislature could provide school districts with more flexibility in the short term. We also provide the Legislature with a relatively simple approach for making more lasting improvements to California’s K–12 finance system.
February 1, 2011 - Total expenditures for the regional center system that provides services for persons with developmental disabilities more than doubled between 1999-00 and 2009-10, leading to a series of actions by the Legislature to slow down the growth in the program. In this report, we describe and assess proposals in the Governor’s 2011-12 budget plan to achieve further cost containment in programs administered by the Department of Developmental Services, including community services. We recommend approval of the Governor’s budget proposals to (1) extend the 4.25 percent provider payment reduction and the commensurate reduction to regional center (RC) operations, and (2) obtain additional federal funds for services provided through the developmental centers and the RCs. We also recommend the Legislature either expand the existing Family Cost Participation Program or implement means testing to determine who is eligible to receive these state services.These changes, we would acknowledge, represent a significant departure from the policies originally adopted in the Lanterman Act but would help ensure the long-term sustainability of the program for those consumers with the greatest financial need for its services.