Report Factors Determining California’s Share of Federal Formula Grants, Second Edition By Tim Ransdell Feb 25, 2004 This introductory report in the Federal Formula Grants and California series describes the major factors used by federal formula grant programs to allocate funds to states and describes how California’s share of programs varies by the factors employed. A companion document, published in conjunction with the first edition of this report in December 2002, illustrates California’s historical shares of various federal grant programs from 1991 through 2001. The companion report has not been updated because the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has discontinued publication of the annual source for most of the data underlying the report.
Report Patterns in California Government Revenues Since Proposition 13 By Michael A. Shires Mar 1, 1999 In June 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, the first in a long series of ballot initiatives that have constrained state and local governments' ability to raise, allocate, and spend public revenues. This report examines the changes that have occurred in state and local public finance between 1978 and 1995, addressing three questions: How has the share of locally controlled revenues changed? How has the spending flexibility of state and local revenues changed? How has the composition of state and local revenues changed? The study answers these questions for each level of government in California: the state, counties, cities, independent special districts, school districts, and public postsecondary education institutions. A companion volume, Has Proposition 13 Delivered: The Changing Tax Burden in California, traces the changes in the overall revenue burden borne by taxpayers over this same period of time.
Report Fiscal Realities: Budget Tradeoffs in California Government By Jon Sonstelie, Tracy Gordon, Patrick Murphy, Ping Zhang Jan 31, 2007 The authors of Fiscal Realities: Budget Tradeoffs in California Government examine California’s entire revenue and spending picture in a way different from traditional, program-based analyses. Through a broad budgetary lens, and by looking at years of public opinion surveys, they evaluate what it would take to make Californians’ stated desires for their state a reality. In many cases, doing so would be extremely expensive. Reducing class size so that teacher-student ratios match ratios in other states would cost California governments an additional $15 billion per year. What services would Californians be willing to forego to pay for this? The report should help spark a broad public conversation about the tradeoffs Californians make now and those they might have to make to attain the kind of California they want.
Report Deep Roots: Local Government Structure in California By Paul Lewis Sep 1, 1998 Many observers have argued that California's system of local government is too complex and fragmented. They contend that such complexity hinders coordination among governmental activities, makes it difficult to establish political accountability, and may lead to inefficient provision of services. Some have further argued that the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 exacerbated the problem, leading to a proliferation of new cities and special districts and fundamentally altering California's local governance structure. This report examines the long-term trends in California's local government structure and the possible effects of Proposition 13. It presents a new, more accurate method for measuring local government fragmentation and illuminates the factors that contribute to differences in local political structure around the state.
Report Rethinking the State-Local Relationship: An Overview By Dean Misczynski Apr 29, 2011 Governor Jerry Brown’s January 2011 budget proposal sparked renewed interest in "realignment”—that is, in changing how the state and localities divide responsibility for programs and services. This report identifies basic principles for realignment, outlines legal and other constraints, and examines critical funding issues. This report is part of a PPIC series on rethinking the state-local relationship. The series includes: Child Welfare Services Corrections K-12 Education Local Economic Development This work is supported by funding from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund and by contributions of unrestricted support to PPIC’s Donor Circle.
Report A Review of Local Government Revenue Data in California By Michael A. Shires, Melissa Glenn Haber Mar 1, 1997 Many policymakers and analysts throughout the state have hesitated to use the State Controller's data on local public revenues, citing three assumptions about their quality: They do not capture all public entities in the state, they do not accurately reflect the fiscal activity of those they do capture, and they are not produced in a timely manner. The authors compare the revenues reported by more than 6,500 entities in the state with the State Controller's annual report. Although they find that the data are basically sound, the authors offer a number of recommendations for increasing the timeliness, comprehensiveness, and accuracy of the information, thereby making it more useful to both the policy and research communities.
blog post PPIC Celebrates Two New Endowed Chairs By Mark Baldassare Jul 2, 2018 PPIC has established the John and Louise Bryson Chair in Policy Research and the Thomas and Marilyn Sutton Chair in Higher Education Policy.
Report Federal Formula Grants: Federal Transit Assistance Programs By Tim Ransdell, Shervin Boloorian Sep 27, 2004 The nation’s last major surface transportation law, enacted in 1998, was the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century or TEA-21. The law expired on September 30, 2003, without Congress having reauthorized it, but temporary extension bills have kept TEA-21’s provisions operational. Under TEA-21, California has received more federal transit funding than any other state through the two major types of federal transit assistance—“formula grants” and “capital investment grants.” This report describes the data sources and formula programs used to determine the share each state receives in formula transit funds. It then discusses capital investment grants and loans, which support projects too large in scale to be sustained consistently by formula apportionments alone. Finally, it examines in detail the various proposals from the White House, the Senate, and the House for reauthorizing TEA-21.
Report Building California’s Future: Current Conditions in Infrastructure Planning, Budgeting, and Financing By Michael Neuman, Jan Whittington Jun 1, 2000 California’s identified infrastructure needs now outstrip available funds. To address this problem, the governor has charged the Commission on Building for the 21st Century with investigating financial options for narrowing the gap between needs and resources. This important and timely charge seems to neglect another important policy consideration: the way infrastructure decisions are made in the first place. In Building California’s Future: Current Conditions in Infrastructure Planning, Budgeting, and Financing, Michael Neuman and Jan Whittington examine California’s decision-making process at the state level. Based on interviews with policymakers as well as a thorough review of laws, rules, and budgets, their study evaluates how state agencies, legislators, and the governor interact to plan, budget, finance, and prioritize infrastructure projects.
Report Budget Practices and State Expenditures: Lessons for California By Jaime Calleja Alderete Mar 5, 2007 This report examines whether the adoption of certain kinds of administrative mechanisms in California’s annual budget process could make that process more efficient. If so, some of these budget practices could help reduce state spending. Six practices are used by other large-population states. But California now uses only one: the May revision of the governor’s budget. The author finds that the adoption of certain practices might indeed reduce per capita expenditures, but that others are unlikely to do so. The May revision, however, produced no significant savings.
