To browse all LAO publications, visit our Publications page.
March 25, 2015 - Chapter 620, Statutes of 2012 (AB 970, Fong), also known as the Working Families Student Fee Transparency and Accountability Act, requires the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) to fulfill three types of requirements related to systemwide tuition and fee increases. As detailed in this report, our review found UC was not in compliance with most provisions of Chapter 620. Though the legislation deems its provisions 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.
March 24, 2015 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 24, 2015 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
March 24, 2015 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Committee
March 12, 2015 - Presented to Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
February 27, 2015 - In this report, we provide an overview of the Governor’s higher education budget. We then review the segments' performance in certain key areas and assess the degree to which the segments require enrollment growth funding, base funding increases, and facilities funding. We find the segments have improved performance in some areas but additional improvement is needed. We find little to warrant additional enrollment growth at UC and CSU, and available data indicate CCC likely will not use all the growth funding provided in 2014-15. We recommend against unallocated budget increases, instead recommending that the Legislature link base increases to a cost-of-living adjustment and any additional increases to specified state priorities. We review several facility proposals and make various related recommendations, including recommending the Legislature establish state facility priorities and require the segments to submit a report describing how they plan to eliminate their maintenance backlogs.
February 18, 2015 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
February 2, 2015 - This report updates our 2012 progress report on transfer reform. We found that since 2012, both CCC and CSU have made substantial progress in meeting the legislation’s goals. Although some community colleges and CSU campuses are lagging in meeting specific statutory targets, both segments are making a good faith effort to comply with the legislation. Moving forward, we recommend the Legislature set specific reporting and data requirements to ensure the segments stay on track toward achieving the goals of transfer reform.
January 16, 2015 - Chapter 425, Statutes of 2010 (AB 2382, Blumenfield), authorizes the California State University (CSU) to award independent doctor of physical therapy (DPT) degrees. The legislation followed a 2009 decision by the sole accrediting organization recognized by the federal government to accredit physical therapy programs to no longer accredit programs at the master’s level. The legislation requires CSU, the Department of Finance, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct a joint evaluation of CSU DPT programs by January 2015. The joint team found that CSU DPT programs comply with the provisions of Chapter 425. In addition, the review raised a number of broader issues regarding state tuition policy, expansion of academic programs, year-round programs, and additional CSU doctoral programs.
August 6, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on Campus Climate
July 28, 2014 - Presented to Assembly Select Committee on Higher Education In San Diego County
July 1, 2014 - The Legislature passed the Student Success Act of 2012 in an effort to improve student outcomes at the California Community Colleges (CCC). Since enactment, community colleges have made a number of changes designed to enhance support services for students. Though development and implementation of these changes still are in their early stages, overall we believe CCC is making changes consistent with the act and is on the right track. While the system is well underway in implementing the various provisions of the act, we believe the system has additional work to do in addressing other complementary priorities, particularly in the areas of course alignment, basic skills, and professional development.
May 15, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance
April 11, 2014 - Due to a combination of poor budgeting practices and competing funding priorities, all of the state's education segments currently have a backlog of deferred maintenance projects. The Governor’s budget includes a package of proposals to begin addressing this backlog. While we commend the administration for highlighting deferred maintenance as a problem, we have concerns with the Governor's specific proposals and recommend the Legislature consider various alternatives. Looking beyond 2014-15, we believe the state should have a long-term strategy for properly maintaining education facilities. While a one-size-fits-all response very likely is not appropriate for such a diverse array of education segments, segment-specific plans likely could be very helpful. To this end, we recommend the Legislature require the education segments to develop plans that detail how much they set aside annually for scheduled maintenance, how they plan to eliminate their existing deferred maintenance backlogs over the next several years, and how they plan to avoid creating new backlogs thereafter. (In contrast to the other segments, we believe the state should not impose additional maintenance requirements on elementary and secondary schools at this time. The different approach for schools acknowledges the state’s recent decision to shift fiscal decision making and accountability for many aspects of schools’ operations—including maintenance—to the local level.)
April 8, 2014 - Presented to: Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance