To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
September 8, 2016 - Presented to: Career Technical Education Legislative Staff Working Group
August 18, 2016 - In 2016-17, eight state agencies are receiving more than $6 billion in state and federal funding to administer almost 30 workforce education and training programs. Historically, state and federal laws have required service providers to report different types of outcome information even for similar workforce programs, making comparing programs and assessing the overall system's performance difficult. In addition, to collect information about program participants’ longer-term outcomes, state agencies often must share and link data with one another. Currently, the state's method for linking data is inefficient and administratively burdensome. To address these concerns, we recommend the Legislature direct the California Workforce Development Board to determine a set of common outcome measures for workforce programs and require programs to collect and report data for those measures. We also recommend the Legislature replace the state’s existing method of linking data with a streamlined, systemwide method. To increase the value of workforce data, we further recommend the board present the data in a few workforce reports each year, with the intent of informing policy makers’ policy and funding decisions and improving the overall quality of the state’s workforce system.
Correction (8/18/16): CalWORKs employment and training services funding levels corrected in Figure 1.
May 16, 2016 - Notable new higher education proposals in the May Revision include a $75 million increase for community college general purpose apportionments, a $26 million increase for two initiatives to improve California State University (CSU) graduation rates, and a $4 million increase to expand the University of California’s (UC’s) online A-G course offerings. We recommend adopting the proposal for community college apportionments in order to provide colleges with more flexible funding. We recommend rejecting the Governor’s proposals for UC and CSU, largely due to insufficient information about why the funding increases are needed. In this report, we also assess and make recommendations on various other higher education May Revision proposals.
April 7, 2016 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
April 6, 2016 -
Chapter 620 of 2012 (AB 970, Fong) requires the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) to fulfill the following three requirements related to systemwide tuition and fee increases:
As detailed below, our review found UC was not in compliance with several provisions of Chapter 620. Though the legislation deems its provisions to be required for UC, UC believes it is not legally obligated to comply because of its constitutional autonomy. We found CSU complied with all Chapter 620 provisions except for one reporting requirement.
April 5, 2016 - Presented to Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 4, 2016 - Presented to: California Community College (CCC) Financial Aid Directors, April 4, 2016.
March 29, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 14, 2016 - This brief is intended to assist the Legislature in reviewing the Governor’s proposal for zero-textbook-cost degrees. We provide background on open educational resources (OER), describe California efforts to encourage their use, and highlight zero–textbook–cost degree initiatives currently underway in other states. We then describe the Governor’s proposal and provide our associated assessment and recommendations.
February 26, 2016 - In this report, we provide background on three key areas of higher education in California: enrollment, tuition and financial aid, and institutional performance. We then analyze specific budget proposals for the University of California, California State University, California Community Colleges, Hastings College of the Law, and California Student Aid Commission, making corresponding recommendations for the Legislature's consideration.
February 10, 2016 - In November 2015, the Regents of the University of California (UC) approved a proposal to enter into a public–private partnership to double the physical size of the Merced campus. Under the plan, enrollment on the Merced campus would grow from 6,000 to 10,000 full–time equivalent (FTE) students by 2020. This brief is intended to assist the Legislature in reviewing this proposal. In it, we provide background on the Merced campus and the state process for approving capital outlay projects at UC, describe key aspects of the proposed project, and raise four key issues for the Legislature to consider.
February 5, 2016 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 3, 2016 - Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
February 3, 2016 - Presented to: Senate Education Committee
January 20, 2016 - Presented to: Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications.