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.
4,624 Publications Found
February 23, 2006 - Our annual detailed examination of the Budget Bill based on the Governor's Budget. It includes hundreds of findings and recommendations related to education, health and social services, criminal justice, transportation, resources, capital outlay, information technology, and local government.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s budget proposes $110 million to fund 2.5 percent enrollment growth at the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU). This amount would provide $10,103 in General Fund support for each additional student at UC and $6,792 for each additional student at CSU. (The proposed budget also provides $149 million for a 3 percent enrollment increase at the California Community Colleges.) In this write-up, we (1) review recent enrollment trends at UC and CSU, (2) analyze the Governor’s proposed enrollment growth and funding rates for 2006-07, and (3) recommend alternatives to those rates.
February 23, 2006 - For 2006-07, we recommend the Legislature at least maintain nonneedy students’ share of cost at the current-year level. Holding this share constant would entail modest fee increases of 3.5 percent at the University of California (UC), 3.0 percent at the California State University (CSU), and 7.0 percent at the California Community College (CCC). For a full-time undergraduate, this equates to an annual increase of $215 at UC, $76 at CSU, and $55 at CCC. These increases would generate $84 million in net new fee revenue. (Of this fee revenue, $35 million is generated at UC, and $1 million at Hastings, $24 million at CSU, and $24 million at CCC.) We also recommend the Legislature reject the Governor’s “fee buyout” proposal because it distorts budgeting and creates the wrong incentives. Rather than provide a fee buyout, we recommend the Legislature provide the segments sufficient funding to meet identified needs.
February 23, 2006 - Operating University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) campuses on a year-round schedule-which more fully utilizes the summer term-is an efficient strategy for serving additional students with existing facilities. In this write-up, we (1) review actions the state has taken to promote summer expansion, (2) provide an update on UC’s and CSU’s efforts to expand summer operations, and (3) identify issues for the Legislature to consider in regard to further summer expansion.
February 23, 2006 - The Governor’s 2006-07 budget proposal includes $130 million to equalize per-student funding among community college districts. To the extent the Legislature wishes to fund priorities beyond workload increases, we recommend that the Legislature approve an augmentation sufficient to finish funding equalization to the 90th percentile, as called for in statute. However, we recommend the Legislature fund equalization contingent upon enactment of legislation providing an allocation method that preserves its equalization investment.
February 23, 2006 - We recommend the Legislature enact legislation that would restructure how the state administers grant and loan programs. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature authorize a single agency, with a single board and Executive Director, to administer both state grant and federal loan programs. We recommend the agency be structured as a nonprofit public benefit corporation but subject to stronger accountability requirements.
February 22, 2006 - State costs for reimbursing counties for two state-mandated programs to provide mental health services for school children have grown significantly in recent years. Moreover, serious weaknesses are evident in the system for delivering these services for children in special education programs. To help guide legislative policy-making in this area, we provide background information on these two mandates, assess the Governor’s budget and policy proposals relating to them, and outline the Legislature’s options for addressing these issues.
February 22, 2006 - The Governor has proposed to consolidate several energy-related activities in a new Department of Energy, to be headed by a cabinet-level Secretary of Energy. The Governor’s proposal would also transfer the responsibility for permitting new electricity transmission projects from the California Public Utilities Commission to the new department. In his analysis, we describe the existing energy organizational structure in the state, consider concerns raised about the existing structure, examine key points of the Governor’s proposal, and raise issues and make recommendations for reorganizing energy-related activities in California.
February 22, 2006 - The Governor’s budget contains proposals for increased spending of $61 million ($54 million General Fund) in the budget year related to the state’s emergency preparedness and response—primarily for public health and agricultural emergencies. While some of the proposals are warranted, most of the proposals suffer from one or more deficiencies—such as the failure to maximize funds other than the General Fund, poorly designed solutions, and the failure to follow state information technology policy. Consequently, we recommend the Legislature reject many of the administration’s proposals. We also offer a number of key considerations for the Legislature as it evaluates the state’s emergency preparedness. Finally, we comment on recent federal funding changes, reducing risks through land use decisions, and the creation of separate homeland security and public health departments.
February 22, 2006 - California has benefited greatly from over $11 billion in unanticipated increases in state revenues. Yet, due to its allocation of these funds, the 2006-07 Governor’s Budget would still leave the state with large structural budget shortfalls and an enormous amount of outstanding financial obligations. In this regard, the budget proposal misses an important opportunity to take advantage of highly favorable revenues to get the state’s fiscal house in order. We thus recommend that the Legislature reduce the amount of ongoing spending increases proposed in this budget, and use the savings to either increase reserves or pre-pay additional budgetary debt.