LAO
Cal Facts: 2016
Read the report at Legislative Analyst's Office ↗
i
With a state as big, as populous, and as complex
as California, it would be impossible to quickly
summarize how its economy or state budget works.
The purpose of Cal Facts is more modest. By
providing various "snapshot" pieces of information,
we hope to provide the reader with a broad overview
of public finance and program trends in the state.
Cal Facts consists of a series of charts and tables
which address questions frequently asked of our
office. We hope the reader will find it to be a handy
and helpful document.
Mac Taylor
Legislative Analyst
ii
L a ’ O s
egisLative naLyst s ffice taff
Legislative Analyst
Mac Taylor
State and Local Finance Education
Jason Sisney Jennifer Kuhn
Ryan Anderson
Carolyn Chu Edgar Cabral
Justin Garosi Natasha Collins
Ann Hollingshead Jason Constantouros
Seth Kerstein Virginia Early
Ryan Miller Paul Golaszewski
Nick Schroeder Judy Heiman
Brian Uhler Dan Kaplan
Brian Weatherford Kenneth Kapphahn
Paul Steenhausen
Corrections, Transportation,
and Environment Health and Human Services
Anthony Simbol Mark Newton
Brian Brown Ginni Bella Navarre
Drew Soderborg
Amber Didier
Ashley Ames
Callie Freitag
Jackie Barocio
Ben Johnson
Ross Brown
Brian Metzker
Rachel Ehlers
Lourdes Morales
Helen Kerstein
Sonja Petek
Anita Lee
Ryan Woolsey
Shawn Martin
Meredith Wurden
Caitlin O'Neil
Jessica Peters
Jonathan Peterson
Administration and
Information Services
Support
Sarah Kleinberg
Tina McGee
Karry Dennis-Fowler
Izet Arriaga
Sarah Barkman Michael Greer
Sarah Scanlon Vu Chu
Jim Stahley Sandi Harvey
Anthony Lucero Rima Seiilova-Olson
iii
c
Ontents
IntroductIon .....................................................i
LAo StAff ......................................................ii
cALIfornIA'S Economy ......................................1
StAtE And LocAL fInAncE ...............................12
ProgrAm trEndS
Education .......................................................30
HEaltH and Human SErvicES ............................48
criminal JuSticE ..............................................59
rESourcES ......................................................62
tranSportation ...............................................66
otHEr programS ............................................68
iv
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
California’s EConomy
1
California's Economy:
One of the Largest in the World
Gross Domestic Product (In Trillions)
United States
(excluding California)
China
Japan
Germany
United Kingdom
California
France
India
Italy
Brazil
Texas
Canada
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 $18
Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of goods
and services produced in a country or state.
Measured in U.S. dollars, only five countries had a
GDP larger than California’s $2.5 trillion GDP in 2015.
Weakness in the value of European currency caused
France’s GDP to be just a bit smaller than California’s
that yeCar.F_Econ_09
ARTWORK # CF_160450
With 34 percent of California’s population, the Los
Angeles/Orange County region produces 38 percent
of California’s economic output. With only 17 percent
of the population, the Bay Area produces 27 percent
of the staTteem’s opultaptuet._CalFACTS.ait
California’s EConomy
2
Economic Output Varies
Throughout the State
Population and Per Capita Gross Domestic Product
Remainder of the State
$32,586
Sacramento Area
$52,248
Bay Area San Joaquin Valley
$93,599 $36,797
Central Coast
$50,628
Greater Los Angeles
$59,940
San Diego
$66,850
= 1,000,000 people.
CF_Econ_06
Calfacts_160450
California’s EConomy
3
Job Mix Varies in
Different Regions of California
Employment Concentration in
Selected Sectors, 2015
Government
Professional Services
and Technologya
Manufacturing
Construction
Greater LA
Bay Area
Rest of State
Agriculture, mining,
and logging
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20%
Percent of Jobs in Each Region
aIncludes information sector and professional, scientific, and technical
services sector.
CF_Econ_05
Calfacts_160450
California’s EConomy
4
International Trade Is
Important to California's Economy
2015 International Goods Exports (In Billions)
European Union UK
Mexico
Canada
China
Japan
Hong Kong
South Korea
Taiwan
Other
10 20 30 40 $50
Computers and
Electronics
CF_Econ_03_A
Vehicles and
MachinAerrytwork#160450
Agriculture,
Food, and
Beverages
Chemicals and
Pharmaceuticals
Other
10 20 30 40 50 $60
CF_Econ_03_B
Artwork#160450
Graphic Sign Off
SGercarepthaircy Sign Off
Analyst
Secretary
MPA
Analyst
Deputy
MPA
Deputy
California’s EConomy
5
California Is the
Nation's Leading Farm State
2015 Value of Farm Production (In Billions)
$50
45 Animal Products and Other
$ 4 5 0 0 Crops
3 4 5 5 Animal Products and Other
40 Crops
30
35
25
30
20
25
15
20
10
15
5555
10
CA IA TX NE MN KS IL WI NC IN
5555
CA IA TX NE MN KS IL WI NC IN
California’s Top Ten Valued
$7 Commodities in 2015 (In Billions)
6
$7
5
6
4
5
3
4
2
3
1
2
1 Milk Almonds Grapes Cattle Lettuce Straw-TomatoesPoultry Walnuts Hay
berries and Eggs
Milk Almonds Grapes Cattle Lettuce Straw-TomatoesPoultry Walnuts Hay
berries and Eggs
CF_Econ_11
ARTWORK # CF_160450
CF_Econ_11
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
California’s EConomy
6
Poverty Varies Across Counties,
Driven in Part by Housing Costs
Poverty Ratea, 2011 Through 2013
21.5% to 26%
17.5% to 21.4%
13% to 17.4%
a California Poverty Measure rates.
Source: Public Policy Institute of California and
Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.
Unlike the federal Official Poverty Measure, the
California Poverty Measure (CPM) accounts more
comprehensively for certain household costs and
government assistance and adjusts for regional
differences in housing costs. High housing costs in a
county are one factor that contributes to a high poverty
rate under this measure.
CF_Econ_08
Under t A he R C T P W M O , f R ro K m # 2 0 C 11 F _ th 1 ro 6 u 0 g 4 h 5 2 0 013, poverty
rates varied across counties from a low of 13 percent
to a high of 26 percent. Over this same period, the
statewide CPM rate was 21.2 percent, equivalent to
8 million Californians being considered poor.
Template_CalFACTS.ait
California’s EConomy
7
Top Incomes Higher in
California Than in the U.S.
2015 Household Incomes
$450,000
400,000
350,000 California
U.S.
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Median Top 5%
“Top 5%” refers to the mean of the top 5 percent of
incomes. California has the fifth-highest “Top 5%”
among the 50 states. (Other estimates of the highest
incomes, such as the 99th percentile, are not available.)
California’s EConomy
8
California Home Prices
Rising Faster Than U.S.
Median Home Price (In Thousands)
$600
500
400
California
300
200 United States
100
2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Home Building Below Historical Norm
Residential Building Permits (In Thousands)
250
CF_Econ_02_A
200 Artwork#160450
150
100
50
2000 2005 2010 2015
CF_Econ_02_B
Artwork#160450
California’s EConomy
9
Rents Higher in California
Median Monthly Rent
$1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100 California
1,000
900
800 United States
700
600
2005 2010 2015
Many Pay More Than One-Third of
Their Income in Rent
Share of Income Spent on Rent, 2015
Riverside—San Bernardino
Los Angeles
Fresno
Santa Ana—Anaheim
San Diego
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Oakland
Other States' Metro Areas
San Jose
San Francisco
20 25 30 35%
California’s EConomy
10
Unemployment Rates
Generally Highest in Central Valley
Average Unemployment
Rate in 2015
3.4% 7.5 11.7
Note: Average unemployment rate in 2015 in Colusa and Imperial
counties was 15.5 percent and 24 percent, respectively.
CF_Econ_07
Calfacts_160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
California’s EConomy
11 Analyst
MPA
Deputy
California’s Changing Population
(As Percent of Actual or Projected Population)
Growing Latino Population
90%
80
70
White
60
50
40
Hispanic/Latino
30
20
Asian/Pacific Islander
10
African American
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
Growing Elderly Population
50%
40
35-64
30
0-17
18-34
20
65+
10
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
CF_Econ_12
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
State and LocaL Finance
12
California Governments Rely . . .
STATE LOCAL
Tax Rate Revenue Tax Rate Revenue
1% of assessed value,
Marginal rates of
Personal Income Property plus rate for
1% to 13.3%
voter-approved debt
Sales and Use:
Sales and Use:
General Purpose 3.94%
Levied Statewide 1.25%
State Rate for 2.06% Levied Locally 0.91% (average)
Local Programs
8.84% of
Commonly, 5% of
Corporation California Utility
utility charges
net income
28¢ per gallon Commonly, 10% of
Fuel Hotel
of gasoline hotel charges
2.35% of A flat amount or based
Insurance Business
gross premiums on business’ gross receipts
Vehicle 0.65% of Typically 0.11% of
Property Transfer
License Fee depreciated value transferred property value
Amount of Revenue Raised
Cigarettesa 87¢ per pack
$10 billion
$1 billion
Varies−20¢/gallon for
Alcoholic Beverage beer and wine to
$6.60/gallon for spirits
Amount of Revenue Raised
$10 billion
$1 billion
a Proposition 56 increases the cigarette tax to $2.87 starting April 2017.
ARTWORK CF_160450
State-Local_11
State and LocaL Finance
13
. . . On a Variety of Taxes
STATE LOCAL
Tax Rate Revenue Tax Rate Revenue
1% of assessed value,
Marginal rates of
Personal Income Property plus rate for
1% to 13.3%
voter-approved debt
Sales and Use:
Sales and Use:
General Purpose 3.94%
Levied Statewide 1.25%
State Rate for 2.06% Levied Locally 0.91% (average)
Local Programs
8.84% of
Commonly, 5% of
Corporation California Utility
utility charges
net income
28¢ per gallon Commonly, 10% of
Fuel Hotel
of gasoline hotel charges
2.35% of A flat amount or based
Insurance Business
gross premiums on business’ gross receipts
Vehicle 0.65% of Typically 0.11% of
Property Transfer
License Fee depreciated value transferred property value
Amount of Revenue Raised
Cigarettesa 87¢ per pack
$10 billion
$1 billion
Varies−20¢/gallon for
Alcoholic Beverage beer and wine to
$6.60/gallon for spirits
Amount of Revenue Raised
$10 billion
$1 billion
a Proposition 56 increases the cigarette tax to $2.87 starting April 2017.
ARTWORK CF_160450
State-Local_11
State and LocaL Finance
14
Personal Income Tax Is the
Dominant State Revenue Source
Share of General Fund Revenues
70%
60
Personal Income Tax
50
40 Sales Tax
30
20
Corporation Tax
10
1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11
Although revenues from all big three tax sources have
grown over the past several decades, the personal
income tax (PIT) has replaced the sales tax as the
predominant source of General Fund revenue.
The increaCsFe_ inS thtae tPeIT- Liso ducea tlo_ r0ap7id growth in incomes
(including capital gains) of high-income people who
Artwork#160450
are taxed most heavily under the state’s progressive
tax structure.
Throughout the period, the prices of services (such as
housing and healthcare) have grown faster than the
prices of goods. Unlike goods, services are not subject
to the state’s sales tax.
State and LocaL Finance
15
Personal Income Tax Is
More Volatile Than Economy
Percent Change From Prior Fiscal Year
40%
30 Personal Income Tax
20
10
Personal Income
-10
-20
-30
95-96 97-98 99-00 01-02 03-04 05-06 07-08 09-10 11-12 13-14 15-16
Personal income is a broad measure of economic
activity in California. It measures wages and salaries
and various other types of income.
The personal income tax (PIT), the state’s largest state
revenue source, is more volatile than personal income.
This is in part because the PIT is levied on relatively
volatile components of personal income. In addition,
the state taxes especially volatile types of income
not included in the measure of personal income—in
particular, capital gains (income resulting from sales of
assets, such as stocks). PIT is also volatile because the
state’s progressive tax structure taxes higher-income
taxpayers—whose incomes are volatile—at higher
rates.
CF_State-Local_15
Calfacts_160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
State and LocaL Finance
16
Top 1 Percent of Income Earners
Pay Up to Half of State Income
Taxes
Top 1 Percent Share of:
60%
Personal Income Tax Payments
Income on Tax Returns
50
40
30
20
10
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
The share of California’s personal income tax (PIT)
paid by the top 1 percent of tax returns is highly
volatile. This share goes up and down with changes
in stock and other asset prices, as well as business
income.
With the PIT now providing over two-thirds of state
General Fund revenue, income fluctuations among
these high-income taxpayers can contribute to
state revenues rising or falling by billions of dollars
per year.
CF_Econ_10
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
State and LocaL Finance
17
Corporation Tax Liability as
Percent of Profits Has Declined
12%
Corporate Tax Rate
10
8
6
Taxes Paid as
Percent of Profits
4
2
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Using various provisions of state tax law, such as tax
credits, corporations may reduce their tax liability. This
can result in the firms’ final tax liabilities—as a percent
of their California profits—being less than the main
8.84 percent corporate tax rate in state law.
The state has made various major changes in corporate
tax law in recent decades. These include expansions
of some tax credits and other changes. Such changes
have contributed to a sharp decline in corporation tax
liabilities as a percent of profits. In prior decades, these
tax liabilities were closely linked with the state tax rate.
State and LocaL Finance
18
Sales and Use Taxes Levied for
State and Local Purposes
Average
Statewide Rate 8.16%
Optional local rates
0.91% (statewide average)
Local Rates
City and county operations
(1%) and county
1.25
transportation (0.25%)
0.50 Local public safety
State-Established 0.50 Health and social services
Rates for Local programs (1991 realignment)
Programs
Criminal justice, mental
1.06
health, and social services
programs (2011 realignment)
State General
Fund Rate 3.94
CF_State-Local_01
Artwork#160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
State and LocaL Finance
19
Analyst
MPA
Consumers Are Spending a
Deputy
Declining Share of Income on
Taxable Goods
55%
50
45
40
35
30
25
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Since 1970, the state’s sales tax base, “taxable
sales,” has grown 6.2 percent per year, while personal
income—the total income earned by businesses and
individuals in California—has grown 7 percent per
year. Californians are spending more of their income
on housing, health care, and other services not subject
to the sales tax.
Total state and local sales tax revenue has grown
7.4 percent per year since 1970. Revenue growth
has outpaced taxable sales growth because the
average sales tax rate has increased from 5 percent
to 8.2 percent.
CF_State-Local_02
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
State and LocaL Finance
20
Ballot Measures Have Had Major
State-Local Fiscal Implications
Proposition
(Year) Key Provisions
13 (1978) Limits property tax rates and assessment
increases. Establishes vote requirement for
certain taxes.
4 (1979) Sets annual state and local spending caps.
Requires state to reimburse local governments
for some state mandates.
98 (1988) Establishes minimum funding requirement for
schools and community colleges.
172 (1993) Imposes half-cent sales tax for local public
safety programs.
218 (1996) Limits local government authority to impose
certain taxes, fees, and assessments.
39 (2000) Lowers voter approval requirements to
55 percent for certain local school bonds.
1A (2004) Restricts state from reducing local property tax,
sales tax, and vehicle license fee revenues.
22 (2010) Reduces state’s authority to use or redirect state
fuel and local property taxes
25 (2010) Lowers Legislature’s vote requirement for state
budget to a simple majority.
26 (2010) Broadens definition of taxes to include some
additional fees and charges.
30 (2012) & Temporary state tax increases. Proposition 55
55 (2016) extends the income tax increases through 2030.
2 (2014) Sets new rules for state and school budget
reserves and debt payments.
State and LocaL Finance
21
Historical Budget Reserve Balances
Percent of Revenues and Transfers
15%
Enacted Budget Reservesa
10 Actual Budget Reservesb
5
-5
-10
1981-82 1986-87 1991-92 1996-97 2001-02 2006-07 2011-12 2016-17
a Estimates of budget-year Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU)
and Budget Stabliziation Account (BSA) balances at budget act.
b Revised estimates of SFEU and BSA balances after budget enactment.
In some years, reflects proceeds of certain bond funds.
Each year, the Legislature passes a budget with
some reserves to cover unanticipated revenue
shortfalls or higher costs. In the last two fiscal years,
reserve balances have been considerably higher than
historical averages. These reserve levels reflect both
mandatory reserve deposits under Proposition 2 (2014)
and additional, discretionary deposits.
ActCuFal_ rSetsaertvee- Lboalcaancl_e0s 8have differed—sometimes
subAsrtatnwtiaolrlyk—#f1ro6m0 r4e5se0rves assumed in the budget
act. Differences between enacted and actual reserve
balances generally result when economic conditions
are worse (or better) than assumed.
State and LocaL Finance
22
State Spending as Share of Economy
Relatively Flat Since Late 1970s
General Fund and Special Funds as
Percent of Personal Income
9%
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11
State spending as a percent of personal income
increased steadily from the late 1950s through the mid-
1970s. Since the late 1970s, spending generally has
ranged between 7 percent and 8 percent of personal
income. (Personal income is one broad measure of the
overall size of the California economy.)
By a different measure—adjusted for inflation and
population growth—state spending has generally
increased since the 1990s.
State and LocaL Finance
23
Education Makes up Over Half of
General Fund Spending
Medi-Cal
Other Health
and Human
Services
K-12
Education
Corrections and
Criminal Justice
Other
Higher Education
Note: At the time of the 2016-17 budget, General Fund spending was $123 billion.
Health and Human Services Is
Close to Half of Special Fund Spending
CF_State-Local_10_B
Health and
Transportation Artwork#160450
Human Services
Other
Spending
Natural Resources
and Environmental
Protection
Corrections and
Criminal Justice
Note: At the time of the 2016-17 budget, special fund spending was $45 billion.
CF_State-Local_10_A
Artwork#160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Universities Represent One-Third of SSta
ta
t
te
e
a n
G
d
oLo v
c
e
aL
r Fn
in
m
anc
e
e
nt Jobs Analyst
24
MPA
Deputy
Universities Represent
One-Third of State Government Jobs
University
of California
Other
California
State University
Corrections and
Rehabilitation California Highway Patrol
State Hospital
Transportation
In 2015-16, the state employed more than 350,000
full-time staff at a salary cost of roughly $28 billion
(all funds).
The state has long had many positions that are
authorized but not filled. Across state departments,
CF_State-Local_03
about 13 percent of positions are vacant. Departments
Artwork#160450
hold many of these positions vacant in order to pay for
other personnel and operating costs.
Over the past 30 years, state employment has
averaged 8.9 state employees per 1,000 population.
In 2015-16, there were about 9.0 employees per 1,000
population.
CF_State-Local_03
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
State and LocaL Finance
25
State Costs for Employee
Compensation Include Benefits
Health
Retirement
Salary
Exclud C in F g _ S u t n a i t v e e - r L si o ty c , a l l e _ g 0 i 4 slative, and judicial
emploAyeretsw, otrhke# s1t6at0e4 5sp0ent about $23 billion
(all funds) in employee compensation costs in
2015-16. About 30 percent of these costs were for
retirement benefits (including pensions, Medicare,
and Social Security) and health benefits (including
vision anTde dmenptlaal)t.e_CalFACTS.ait
Annual state costs to provide health benefits to retired
state employees are not included in the above graphic.
These costs rise each year and were $1.8 billion in
2014-15.
State and LocaL Finance
26
The State Is Addressing
More of Its Liabilities
(In Billions)
Liabilities the State Is Addressing
$250
Liabilities Meriting Further Legislative Attention
200
150
100
50
2014 2016
The state now has plans in place to pay down nearly
60 percent of its $277 billion in budgetary,
infrastructure, and retirement liabilities. These plans
include paying down pension unfunded liabilities and
making regularly scheduled payments on infrastructure
bond debt service.
Legislation passed in 2014 aims to fully fund the
teacher pension system (CalSTRS). The plan
assigns responsibility for $62 billion of the $76 billion
total unfunded liability to school and community
college districts, thereby reducing state liabilities by
a like amount (shown as a reduction between 2014
and 2016).
By contrast, the state does not yet have plans to fully
address unfunded liabilities for retiree health benefits
for state and University of California employees.
Without further state action, those liabilities will continue
to grow.
State and LocaL Finance
27
Voting Requirements to Increase
Taxes, Fees, Assessments or Debt
Govern-
ing
Measure Body Voters
State
Tax 2/3 —
Fee Majority —
General obligation bond 2/3 Majority
Lease revenue bond Majority —
Initiative proposing revenue or debt — Majority
Constitutional amendment 2/3 Majority
proposed by the Legislature
Local
Tax:
Funds used for general purposes 2/3a Majority
Funds used for specific purposes 2/3a 2/3
Property assessment Majority Majorityb
Fee Majorityc —
General obligation bond:
K-14 districts 2/3 55 percent
Cities, counties, and 2/3 2/3
special districts
Revenue bond Majority Majoritya
Other debt Majority —d
a
For most local agencies.
b
Votes weighted by assessment liability of affected property owners.
c
Fees on property (excluding water, sewer, refuse collection, gas, and electric
fees) require voter approval.
d
Enhanced infrastructure financing district debt requires approval by 55 percent of
the district’s voters.
State and LocaL Finance
28
Paying for County, City, and
Special District Services
2014‑15 (In Billions)
Intergovernmental
transfers
$80 User charges and
enterprise revenues
70 Other taxes and
revenues
60 Property taxes
50
40
30
20
10
Counties Cities Special Districts
Counties receive nearly half of their revenues from the
state and federal government and must spend these
funds for specific purposes, primarily health and social
service programs.
Cities and special districts receive a significant share
of their funding from various user charges. Cities and
special districts use these funds to pay for electric,
water, and other municipal services.
State and LocaL Finance
29
Allocation of Property Tax
Has Varied Over Time
(Dollars in Billions)
Tax Revenue Distribution
Selected
Years Revenue Schools Counties Cities Other
1977-78 $10.3 53% 30% 10% 6%
1979-80 5.7 39 32 13 16
1993-94 19.1 51 21 11 18
2014-15 55.5 40 25 18 17
Information includes debt levies.
"Other" includes redevelopment agencies and special districts.
1978
Proposition 13 caps property tax rate at 1 percent and shifts
control of its allocation to the state. Schools receive a smaller
share of property taxes and are backfilled for their losses with
state aid.
1992&1993
State modifies property tax distribution to give a greater share
of revenues to schools, thereby reducing state school spending.
2004
State increases the share of property taxes to cities and
counties to offset (1) reduced vehicle license fees and (2) the
state's use of local sales taxes to repay deficit financing bonds.
2012
State dissolves redevelopment agencies. Property taxes that
once went to these agencies begin to flow back to other local
governments in the area.
2015
Cities’ and counties’ property tax shares declined after the
state retired deficit financing bonds issued in 2004.
CF_State-Local_05
Artwork#160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
California’s Public Education System is Extensive
2015-16 Deputy
Program Trends
30
California's Public
Education System Is Extensive
2015‑16
K-12 Education
946 Districts
10,021 Schools
6.2 Million Students
570,000 FTE Faculty and Staffa
$60.2 Billion Proposition 98 Support
California Community Colleges
72 Districts
113 Colleges
1.2 Million FTE Students
64,000 FTE Faculty and Staff
$8.0 Billion Proposition 98 Support
California State University
23 Campuses
371,000 Resident FTE Students
41,000 FTE Faculty and Staff
$3.3 Billion State General Fund Support
University of California
10 Campuses
5 Medical Centers
3 National Labs
211,000 Resident FTE Students
153,000 FTE Faculty and Staff
$3.3 Billion State General Fund Support
aReflects 2014-15 data (latest available).
FTE = full-time equivalent.
CF_Trends_03
Artwork#160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Program Trends
31 Analyst
State Is Primary Source of Revenue for Schools
Title will be part of final layout>>>
2015-16 MPA
State Is Primary Source of
Deputy
Revenue for K-12 Education
2015‑16
Local Funds
State Funds
Federal Funds
Slightly more than 60 percent of school funding comes
from the state. The California Lottery accounts for less
than 2 percent of all school funding.
About 30 percent of school funding comes from local
sources—primarily property taxes.
Slightly less than 10 percent of school funding comes
CF_Trends_05
from the federal government. This funding supports
specific activities—primarily special services for
ARTWORK # CF_160450
low-income students and students with disabilities.
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
Most School Spending Is for Instruction
Title will be part of final layout>>>
322014-15
Program Trends
MPA
Deputy
Most K-12 Spending
Is for Instruction
2014‑15
Facilities
Student
Services
Instruction
Administration
Other
More than 60 percent of school spending is for
classroom instruction and instructional support,
including teacher salaries and benefits.
Almost 20 pCerFc_enTt roef nscdhsoo_l 0s7pending is for facilities,
including the construction and renovation of school
buildings anAdR onTgWoinOg RmKain #te nCanFc_e1. 60450
About 10 percent of school spending is for student
services, including school meals, home-to-school
transportation, and counseling.
Less thaTne m10p pleartcee_nCt aolfF AsCchToSo.la istpending is for
administration, including the compensation of district
superintendents, and other activities related to
accounting, legal, and human resource services.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Program Trends
33 Analyst
Proposition 98 School Funding at All-Time High
Title will be part of final layout>>>
Funding Per Studenta MPA
Inflation-Adjusted Proposition 98
Deputy
School Funding Near All-Time High
Funding Per Studenta
$12,000
Inflation Adjustedb
10,000
8,000
6,000
Actual
4,000
2,000
1990-91 1995-96 2000-01 2005-06 2010-11 2015-16
a Includes all Proposition 98 funding except the amount going to the
California Community Colleges.
b In 2015-16 dollars. Adjusted using state and local government price index.
School funding tends to fluctuate based on the condition
of the state budget and the economic cycle.
Corresponding with the most recent economic and
fiscal cycle, school funding dropped notably during
the 2008-09 through 2011-12 period and increased
CF_Trends_04
notably during the 2012-13 through 2015-16 period.
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Proposition 98 funding in 2015-16 was $10,217
per student—about $1,400 (16 percent) above the
inflation-adjusted 1988-89 level.
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
34
Most K-12 Funding Provided
Through Student-Based Formula
Other
Special
Education
LCFF
The 2016-17 budget provided $63 billion for schools
from a combination of state General Fund and local
property tax revenues. The state provides the vast
majority of funding—$56 billion—through the Local
Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
Under the LCFF, each student generates a base
funding amount. The base rate varies by grade span,
with higher grades generally funded at higher rates.
The LCFF provides additional funding for low-income
students, English learners, and foster youth.
The state has set LCFF target funding rates and is
working towards those targets. In 2016-17, the state
was funding 96 percent of the target rates.
LCFF Provides Additional Funding for Certain Students
K-12P
r
S
og
t
r
u
a
d
m
eTr n
e
t
n
s
ds
by Type
35
LCFF Provides Additional Funding
For Certain Students
K‑12 Students by Type
All Other
Low Income
Only
English Learner
Only
Low Income and
English Learner
More than 60 percent of K-12 students are low income,
English learners, or foster youth (which are counted
as low income).
Under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), these
students generate supplemental funding equivalent
to 20 percent of the base rate.
If these students comprise more than 55 percent
of a district’s enrollment, the district also receives
concentration funding equal to 50 percent of the base
rate for each student above the threshold.
CF_Trends_13
CF_#160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Program Trends
36
Analyst
Profile of California Teachers
Title will be part of final layout>>>
2014-15 MPA
California Has Almost
Deputy
300,000 Public School Teachers
2014‑15
Compensation
Average salary: $74,090
Average benefitsa: $12,206
Average total compensation: $86,296
Experience
Average years teaching: 15
Less than 5 years: 15 percent
More than 25 years: 14 percent
Education
Bachelor’s degree or higher: 100 percent
Master’s degree or higher: 48 percent
Class Size
Enrollment: 6,235,580 students
Workforce: 295,800 teachers
Student/teacher ratio = 21
Gender
Female: 73 percent
Male: 27 percent
Race/Ethnicity
White: 68 percent
Hispanic: 20 percent
Asian/Pacific Islander: 8 percent
African American: 4 percent
a Reflects health, dental, and vision benefits.
ARTWORK #160450 CF_Trends_08
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Program Trends
37 Analyst
K-12 Enrollment Trends Vary Across State
Title will be part of final layout>>>
Projected Change, 2015-16 to 2024-25 MPA
K-12 Enrollment Trends
Deputy
Vary Greatly Across State
Projected Change, 2015‑16 to 2024‑25
3% to 10%
0% to 3%
-3% to 0%
-10% to -3%
Statewide K-12 enrollment is projected to decline by
1 percent from 2015-16 to 2024-25. Enrollment is
projected to increase in half of the state’s counties and
decrease in the other counties.
CF_Trends_06
Riverside and Kern Counties are projected to
experience thAe RgrTeWateOst ReKnro #llm CenFt _in1c6re0a4s5es0, with
gains over the period of 5 percent (23,000 students)
and 10 percent (18,000 students), respectively.
Los Angeles and Orange Counties are projected to
experience the greatest enrollment decreases, with
declines oveTre thme ppelarioted _oCf 6a plFeArcCenTtS (8.a9i,t000 students)
and 8 percent (41,000 students) respectively.
Program Trends
38
Schools Provide Some Students
With Special Education Services
Percentage of California Children, 2015‑16
12%
10
All Other Disabilities
8
6
4 Learning Disorder
2
Speech Impairment
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Roughly 10 percent of school-aged children in
California have disabilities affecting their education.
Young students are most likely to have speech
impairments, whereas older students are most likely
to have learning disorders such as dyslexia.
For students with disabilities, schools must develop
individual education plans that set forth the extra
support (such as language therapy) to be provided.
About half of students with disabilities spend most of
their day in mainstream classrooms, whereas the other
half are in classrooms with only other special education
students.
Program Trends
39
California Has
Many English Learners
Second Language Students by Classification
110000%%
80
60
40
Fluent in English
20
English Learners
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Grades Kindergarten Through 12
About 40 percent of California students—almost
2.7 million students overall—speak a primary
language other than English at home. The vast majority
of these students (78 percent) speak Spanish.
About half of these students (1.4 million) are classified
as English learners whereas half are considered fluent
in English.
As reflected in the graph, students are much more likely
to be classified as English learners in the early grades.
Almost one-third of all English learners in the nation
live in California.
Updated on 2/10/17
CCFF__TTrreennddss__1111
CF_#160450
Program Trends
40
Student Achievement Gap Is Notable
2014‑15
Proficiency in 3rd grade
English language arts
Proficiency in
3rd grade mathematics
Proficiency in 8th grade
English language arts
Non-Low Income
Proficiency in
Low Income
8th grade mathematics
Four-year
graduation rate
Graduates meeting UC/CSU
entrance requirements
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
California’s low-income students perform significantly
below non-low-income students in English language
arts and matCh.F_Trends_14
Artwork#160450
Low-income students also are less likely to graduate
within four years and complete the minimum
coursework necessary to be accepted into universities.
Student outcomes also vary by race/ethnicity. For
example, among low-income students, four-year
graduation rates are 69 percent for African Americans,
77 percent for Hispanic/Latinos, 78 percent for Whites,
and 89 percent for Asians.
Program Trends
41
State Subsidizes
Child Care and Preschool
2016‑17 (Dollars in Millions)
Program Funding Slots
CalWORKs Child Care $1,146 128,848
Non-CalWORKs Child Care 620 62,519
State Preschool 1,074 163,603
Transitional Kindergarten 719 85,500
Totals $3,559 440,470
To be eligible for state-subsidized child care, families
must be low income and working. Currently, a family of
three making up to roughly $42,000 per year is eligible.
Only families participating in California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids, or CalWORKs,
are guaranteed child care. All other eligible families are
prioritized based on income.
Neither State Preschool nor Transitional Kindergarten
require families to be working. State Preschool is for
children from low-income families whereas Transitional
Kindergarten serves all children turning five between
September and December regardless of family income.
CalWORKs child care funding, which depends on the
number of families participating in welfare-to-work,
is $296 million (21 percent) lower in 2016-17 than
2007-08. By comparison, funding for non-CalWORKs
child care and State Preschool, which tends to increase
when the state budget is strong, is $121 million
(7 percent) higher today than 2007-08.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Program Trends Analyst
42About Three-Fourths of Students in
Title will be part of final layout>>>
California Attend Public Institutions MPA
Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment, 2014-15
California Has Large Deputy
Public Higher Education Sector
Full‑Time Equivalent Enrollment, 2014‑15
Private
For-Profits
Nonprofits
CCC
UC
Public
CSU
Seventy six percent of higher education instruction in
the state occurs at public colleges and universities.
This share is higher than the rest of the nation
(66 percent).
California’s share of students in nonprofit colleges is
lower than the rest of the nation, whereas its share in
ARTWORK #160450 CF_Trends_02
for-profit colleges is similar.
Within California’s public sector, community colleges
account for more than half of enrollment. For the rest
of the nation, community colleges account for a quarter
of public sector enrollment.
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
43
State Covers Large
Share of Education Cost
Average Per‑Student Education and
Student Services Spending, 2016‑17
$25,000
Other
20,000 Student/Family
State
15,000
Financial Aid
10,000 Financial Aid
5,000 Direct Direct Direct
Appropriations Appropriations Appropriations
UC CSU CCC
State support (consisting of direct appropriations to
the segments as well as state-funded student financial
aid) on average accounts for 65 percent, 70 percent,
and 95 percent of the educational cost at the University
of California, the California State University, and the
California Community Colleges, respectively.
The student and family share of these costs on average
is slightly over 20 percent at the universities and
4 percent at the community colleges. The average
masks significant differences, with the share for a
particular student and family depending on the amount
of financial aid they receive.
Other sources of support include nonresident
supplemental tuition, endowment income, federal
contract and grant overhead, and patent royalties.
Program Trends
44
Tuition Has Leveled Off
Following Steep Increases
Systemwide Tuition and Fees for Full‑Time
Undergraduate California Residents
$14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
UC
6,000
4,000
CSU
2,000
CCC
1996-97 2001-02 2006-07 2011-12 2016-17
Changes in tuition and fees have been irregular, with
periods of flat or even falling tuition alternating with
periods of steep increases.
Compared with 20 years ago, tuition levels at each
segment have more than tripled in actual dollars and
almost doubled in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Currently, tuition at the California Community
Colleges is lowest in the nation. At the California State
University, tuition is in the lowest one-sixth of public
masters-leveCl Fu_nTivreernsidties_s,0 9whereas tuition at the
University of California is in the highest one-sixth of
Artwork#160450
large public research universities.
About half of California students currently enrolled in
the public sector receive grants or waivers that fully
cover systemwide tuition and fees.
Program Trends
45
State Financial Aid Spending
Continues to Grow
(Dollars Awarded in Billions)
$5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
Campus Programsa
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 Statewide Programsb
1996-97 2001‐02 2006‐07 2011‐12 2016-17
a Includes need-based tuition aid, fee waivers, and university grants.
b Includes Cal Grants and Middle Class Scholarships administered by the
California Student Aid Commission.
Over the last 20 years, total state aid has increased
nearly nine-fold in actual dollars and five-fold in
inflation-adjusted dollars.
Growth in state financial aid spending has been related
to increases in tuition at the public segments (which
increase the costs of Cal Grants and fee waivers),
increases in the number of students receiving aid, and
state policy changeCsF._Trends_10
Artwork#160450
In addition to state and campus aid, many students
receive federal financial aid, including Pell Grants and
federal tax deductions and credits.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
Title will be part of final layout>>>
MPA
Graduatio4n6 Rates Gradually Increasing at UC P raongdra mC T SrUends Deputy
Four- and Six-Year Rates for Entering First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen
Graduation Rates Gradually
Increasing at UC and CSU
Entering First‑Time, Full‑Time Freshmen
90% Six-Year
80
70 UC
Four-Year
60
50
Six-Year
40
CSU
30
Four-Year
20
10
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
Entering Freshman Cohort
Among recent cohorts, slightly more than 60 percent
of UC freshmen and slightly less than 20 percent
of CSU freshmen have graduated within four years.
These rates are up notably from 15 years ago.
Some students not graduating on time graduate within
the next coupAleR ofT yWeaOrs.R BKey o#n1d 6si0x 4ye5a0rs ,C gFra_duTarteionn ds_01
rates taper off considerably, with increases of only a
few percentage points thereafter.
At UC, transfer students are as likely as freshmen to
graduate, but they are less likely to graduate on time. At
CSU, transTfeer mstupdleanttes_ aCrea mlFoAreC liTkSel.ya bitoth to graduate
and graduate on time compared to freshman.
Program Trends
47
College-Preparedness Linked
With CCC Student Outcomes
75 percent
of CCC students are identified (primarily
through placement tests) as unprepared for
college English and math.
45 percent
of students who take remedial English and
33 percent who take remedial math go on
to complete a college-level course in that
subject within six years.
40 percent
of students initially identified as unprepared
complete a certificate, degree, or transfer
program within six years, compared to
70 percent for their prepared peers.
5.2 years
is the average number of academic years an
unprepared student enrolled full time takes to
complete a certificate, degree, or transfer
program, compared with 2.8 years for a
prepared student.
To improve
these outcomes, some colleges are placing
many more students directly into college-level
English and math courses, giving more of
them extra support, and finding that these
students can pass these courses at rates
comparable to other students.
Program Trends
48
What Are the Major Health and
Human Services Programs?
2016‑17 (In Billions)
Funding
Program TF (GF)
Medi-Cal. Provides health care services to $84.0 ($17.8)a, b
low-income Californians.
SSI/SSP. Cash assistance for low-income 10.0 (2.9)a
seniors and persons with disabilities (SPDs).
IHSS. In-home personal care services for 9.8 (3.5)a, c
low-income SPDs.
CalFresh. Food assistance for low-income 8.9 (0.8)a
individuals and families.
Developmental Services. Services for 6.7 (4.0)c
individuals with developmental disabilities.
Child Welfare. Services for children who have 6.0 (0.4)
experienced abuse or neglect.
CalWORKs. Cash assistance and welfare-to- 5.4 (0.7)a
work services for very low-income families.
State Hospitals. Mental health services at 1.7 (1.7)
state-run hospitals and prisons.
WIC. Nutrition services for pregnant women, 1.3 (—)
new mothers, and young children.
a
Local assistance only.
b
Total funds amount is approximate and amounts exclude Medi-Cal spending for
IHSS and developmental services.
c
Includes cost of Medi-Cal benefits.
TF = total funds; GF = General Fund; IHSS = In-Home Supportive Services; and
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Program Trends
49
How Many People Are Served in
Major Health and Human Services
Programs?
Change in Estimated Caseload
Program Last Five Years in 2016-17a
Medi-Calb 86% 14.1 million
CalFresh 10%
4.3 million
SSI/SSP 1%
1.3 million
CalWORKs -14%
1.2 million
WIC -16%
1.2 million
IHSS 13%
0.5 million
Developmental
22%
Services 0.3 million
Child Welfare
Servicesc -1% 0.2 million
State Hospitals 23% 8 thousand
a Average number served at a point in time during the fiscal year.
b Includes individuals receiving Medi-Cal covered services through
the Department of Developmental Services and IHSS.
c Includes family maintenance, foster care, Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment, and Adoption Assistance Program caseloads.
WIC = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children and IHSS = In-Home Supportive Services
CF_Trends_42
Calfacts_160450
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
Graphic Sign Off
MPA
Program Trends D S ep e u c t r y etary
50
Analyst
MPA
Medi-Cal at a Glance
Deputy
Funding by Sourcea
Other State and
Local Funds
General Fund
Federal Funds
Enrollment by Populationb
Seniors and Persons
With Disabilities
Families
Childless Adults and Children
a Medi-Cal local assistance as appropriated in the 2016-17 Budget Act.
b As estimated in the Medi-Cal appropriation in the 2016-17 Budget Act.
The Medi-Cal program provides health coverage to
approximately 14 million low-income Californians, and
is by far the largest health program in the state budget
($17.8 billion General Fund in 2016-17).
ARTWORK # CF_Trends_25_A
ARTWORK # CF_Trends_25_B
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
Program Trends
51
Significant Growth in
Medi-Cal Enrollment
(In Millions)
16
14 Fee-for-Service
Managed Care
12
10
8
6
4
2
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
Note: Enrollment is estimated for 2015-16 and projected for 2016-17.
Medi-Cal has grown from 8 million enrollees in 2011-12
to 14 million in 2016-17. Growth in Medi-Cal can be
attributed to many factors, including (1) implementation
of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and
(2) the transition of the Healthy Families population
into Medi-ACaRl.TWORK # CF_Trends_26
Nearly 3.5 million childless adults are estimated to
have gained eligibility for Medi-Cal through California's
optional Medicaid expansion, which extended eligibility
to childless adults with incomes up to 138 percent of
the federTael mpopvelarttye le_vCeal.lFACTS.ait
In 2011-12, approximately 60 percent of Medi-Cal
enrollees were enrolled in managed care. Since
2011-12, the state transitioned seniors and persons
with disabilities into managed care and expanded
managed care to California’s rural counties. As a result,
in 2016-17, over 75 percent of Medi-Cal enrollees are
estimated to be enrolled in managed care.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
Program Trends
52
Significant Decrease in Uninsured
Population Between 2013 and 2015
Percent Change in Enrollment,
Californians Aged 0‑64
Medicaid
Non-Employer-Sponsored
Othera
Employer-Sponsored
Uninsured
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40%
a Includes Medicare and public health plans available to current and
former military members.
Source: 2013 and 2015 American Community Surveys.
Between 2013 and 2015, over 3 million Californians
gained health coverage, reducing the number of
uninsured adults under the age of 65 to approximately
3 million people. This reduction is driven in part by the
expansion of Medi-Cal and by individuals obtaining
subsidized health coverage through the state’s Health
Benefit Exchange, Covered California.
ARTWORK # CF_Trends_27
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
53
Undocumented Persons Projected
To Be Majority of State's Remaining
Uninsured Population in 2017
Californians Aged 0–64
Medi-Cal Eligible,
Not Enrolleda
ACA Subsidy Undocumented
Eligible, Coverage
Not Purchasedb
Income-Ineligible
for Medi-Cal or
ACA Subsidiesb
a Excludes undocumented children who are eligible for Medi-Cal,
but not enrolled.
b ACA subsidies are received through Covered California.
ACA = Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Source: UC Berkeley and UCLA California Simulation of Insurance
Markets, August 2016.
In 2017, 1.8 million (58 percent) of the remaining
3.1 million uninsured statewide under age 65 are
projected to be undocumented individuals.
Most of the remaining uninsured, undocumented
population are adults because undocumented
children under the age of 19 became eligible for full-
scope Medi-Cal in 2016. The administration estimates
250,000 undocumented children are eligible, out of
whom 137,000 are enrolled as of August 2016.
Program Trends
54
Health of California’s Population
Compared to the Nation
2014, Unless Otherwise Specified
California Nation
Overall Health Status
Percent of adults aged 18 years 17.0 12.6
and older reporting fair or poor
health status
Mortality
Deaths per 100,000 population 633.8 823.7
Top two leading causes of death: Cancer Heart Disease
Heart Disease Cancer
Adult Health Risk Factors
Percent of adults aged 18 or older 11.7 17.0
who smoke
Percent of adults aged 20 or older 27.5 37.9a
who are obese
Percent of adults ever diagnosed 8.9 9.1
with diabetes
Infant, Child, and Adolescent Health
Percent of low-weight births 6.7 8.0
Infant deaths per 1,000 births 4.3 5.8
Percent of children ages 19-35 22.1 28.4
months who did not complete a
set of recommended childhood
vaccinations
Percent of obese adolescent 14.6b 20.6b
students
In the figure above, lower values are better. On all indicators
except self-reported overall health status, California is doing
better or about the same as the nation as a whole.
a
Data from 2013-14.
b
California data is from 2015 covering ages 12-17. Federal data is from 2013-14
covering ages 12-19.
Graphic Sign Off
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
ASneaclyresttary
MAPnAalyst
DMePpAuty
Deputy
Program Trends
55
SSI/SSP Grant and Combined
CalWORKs/CalFresh Assistance
Remain Below Poverty Level
SSI/SSP Grant for
In$d1i,v8i0d0uals Residing in Own Household
1,600
$1,800 Poverty Level a
1,400
1,600 SSI/SSP Grant b, c
1,200 Poverty Level a
1,400
1,000 SSI/SSP Grant b, c
1,200
800
1,000
600
800
400
600
200
400
20007-0808-0909-1010-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-17
07-0808-0909-1010-1111-1212-1313-1414-1515-1616-17
CalWORKs Grant and CalFresh Allotment for a
Family of Three
$1,800
1,600
$1,800
1,400
1,600
1,200
1,400
1,000
1,200
800
1,000
600
800 Poverty Level a
400
600
20 4 0 00 C
C
P a
a
l
l
o W
F
v
r
e
e
O r
s
R t
h
y K
F
L s e
o
G v
o
e
d
ra l
Aa
n
l
t
l o
b
tment
CalFresh Food Allotment
20007-0808-090C9a-l1W0O1R0K-1s1 G1r1a-n1t2 b12-1313-1414-1515-1616-17
a Consistent w0i7th- 0fe8d0e8ra-0l 9po0v9e-1rt0y g1u0i-d1e1lin1e1s-1 p2u1b2li-s1h3ed1 3b-y1 4th1e4 U-1.S5. 1D5e-1p6art1m6e-1n7t of Health
and Human Services.
b aM Caxoinmsuismte nmt ownitthhl yfe gdrearnatl. poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health
c S SanI/dS SHPu mreacnip Sieenrtvsic aerse. not eligible for CalFresh food assistance.
b Maximum monthly grant.
c SSI/SSP recipients are not eligible for CalFresh food assistance.
CF_Trends_31
ARTWORK # CF_160450
CF_Trends_31
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Program Trends Deputy
56
Increases in IHSS Cost
Per Consumer Accelerating
Average Cost Per Consumer (In Thousands)
$22
20 County Funds
18 Federal Funds
16 General Fund
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16a16-17a
a Estimated.
Over the past decade, the average annual cost
of providing personal care services to In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS) recipients has grown by
76 percent, from $11,387 per consumer in 2006-07 to an
estimated $20,066 per consumer in 2016-17.
The IHSS cost per consumer grew annually by an
average of 5 percent between 2006-07 and 2009-10,
slowing to an average of 3 percent per year through
2014-15. Since then, IHSS cost per consumer has grown
significantly at an estimated average of 15 percent per
year.
The increased IHSS cost per consumer estimated
for 2015-16 and 2016-17 is due, in part, to the
implementation of new federal overtime regulations,
rising wages, and increased hours per consumer.
CF_Trends_35
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
57
State Aims to Reduce Reliance on
Costly Group Home Foster Care
Placements
100%
Family Settings
80
Group Homes
60
40
20
Caseload Total Spending
Note: Family Settings include relative homes, Foster Family Homes,
and Foster Family Agency homes.
While foster children living in family settings outnumber
foster children living in group homes by approximately
9 to 1, total spending (all funds) is split roughly equally
between the two groups. State policy gives preference
to placement in home-based family settings.
Recent legislative changes known as the Continuum
of Care Reform aim to reduce the number of children
living in group homes by increasing capacity in home-
based family placements, reducing lengths of stays in
group home settings, and improving access to mental
health and other supportive services.
Program Trends
58
Community Developmental Services
Spending Up Significantly
Percent Change Since 2006‑07
90%
80
70
60
50
40
30 Total Spending
20
Per-Person Spending
10
2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 2016-17
California provides community-based services to over
300,000 developmentally disabled individuals through
21 nonprofit corporations known as regional centers
(RCs). Between 2006-07 and 2016-17, total spending
is estimated to grow by 86 percent, while average
per-person spending is estimated to go up about
30 percent.
The underlying reasons for the cost growth in the
community services system are not fully understood.
In addition to caseload growth, these reasons could
include factors such as (1) an aging RC population,
(2) individuals moving out of state developmental
centers to the community who require more intensive
services and supports relative to the average consumer,
and (3) comparatively higher costs of treating the
growing autistic population.
CF_Trends_40
Calfacts_160450
Program Trends
59
California Crime Rate
Near Historic Low
Crimes Per 100,000 Population
9,000
8,000
7,000 Total
6,000
Property
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
Violent
1,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
California has experienced a decline in the property
crime rate since 1980 and in the violent crime rate
since 1992. Between 1980 and 2015, the state’s overall
crime rate declined by about 60 percent. This decline
is similar to trends in crime patterns in the rest of the
United States.
In 2015, about 3,000 crimes were committed in California
per 100,000 residents—a total of about 1.2 million
incidents. Of these crimes, 86 percent were property
and 14 percent were violent crimes.
California’s property crime rate is 5 percent higher
than the nationwide rate and its violent crime rate is
14 percent higher than the nationwide rate.
Program Trends
60
State and County Correctional
Populations Have Declined
Number of Offenders
400,000
350,000 2007
2015
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
State Prison State Parole County Jail County
Community
Supervision
California’s total correctional population has declined
by 22 percent, from a high of over 730,000 offenders
in 2007 to 568,000 offenders in 2015. This is primarily
due to a decline in state prison and parole populations.
While the county jail and community supervision
populations have declined somewhat, the share of total
offenders under coCunFty_ jTurrisednicdtiosn_ h4a4s increased from
59 percent to 69 percent over the same time period.
Calfacts_160450
The changes in the size and makeup of the correctional
population are largely related to various changes in
sentencing law. For example, the 2011 realignment
shifted responsibility for housing and supervising
some felons from the state to the counties. In contrast,
Proposition 47 (2014) changed some crimes from
felonies to misdemeanors, reducing both state and
county correctional populations.
Program Trends
61
Most Inmate Costs Related to
Security and Health Care
Inmate Health Care
Security
Facility Operations
and Records
Administration
Rehabilitation Programs
Inmate Food
and Activities
Total Annual Costs: $71,000
In 2016-17, the average annual cost to incarcerate an
inmate in prison is estimated to be about $71,000. The
primary cost drivers are security (such as correctional
officer pay)—which accounts for 45 percent of the
total—and health care—which accounts for 30 percent.
Since 2006-07, the average annual cost to incarcerate
an inmate has increased by $29,000, or about
70 percent. This increase has been driven by various
factors, including (1) employee compensation,
(2) increased inmate health care costs, and
(3) operational costs related to additional prison
capacity to reduce prison overcrowding.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
Program Trends
62
State Experiencing
Multiyear Dry Period
Statewide Precipitation in Inches
40
Annual Recent Dry Period
35
30
25
20
15
10 30 Year Average
5
1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016
Precipitation has been at or below average for nine
of the last ten years, with only one particularly wet
year. The years 2012 through 2015 are the driest
consecutive four-year stretch since the state started
keeping records in 1896.
This lack of precipitation has caused drought conditions
around the state. Drought effects have included
fallowed farm fields, groundwater depletion from
increased pumping, dry residential wells, degraded
habitats for fish and wildlife, and high rates of tree
mortality in the state’s forests.
State drought responses have included temporary
water conservation requirements, emergency
assistance (such as drinking water and fish rescues),
and long-term projects to increase future water
supplies.
CF_Trends_33
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
63
Acres Burned by
Wildfire Vary Over Time
(Acres In Thousands)
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
The number of acres burned by wildfire in California
varies significantly each year based on the number
and size of wildfires. Weather, forest health, fire history,
human activity, preventative measures, and response
times all influence wildfire occurrences and severity.
The threat of wildfire varies throughout the state.
Communities that fCacFe _thTer heignhdesst _ris4k3 of losing lives or
homes to wildfirCe ainlcflaudcet sth_e1 p6op0u4la5te0d areas around
the coastal and interior ranges of Southern California,
the hillsides surrounding the San Francisco Bay, and
the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.
The California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection is responsible for wildland fire
protection on more than 31 million acres of
mostly privately owned lands, referred to as State
Responsibility Area. Local and federal firefighting
agencies are responsible for the rest of the state.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
Program Trends
64
Electricity Comes
From Various Sources
Total 2015 Power = 295,405 Gigawatt Hours
Other/Unspecified 14%
Natural Gas 44%
Large Hydro 5%
Coal 6%
Nuclear 9%
Renewable 22%
Small Hydro 4%
Biomass 12%
Wind 37%
Geothermal 20%
Solar 27%
Total 2015 Power = 295,405 Gigawatt hours
About two-thirds of California’s electricity comes from
natural gas and renewable sources. California uses Oat her/Unspecified 14%
Natural Gas 44%
greater share of natural gas and renewables (excluding
large hydroelectric), and less coal and nuclear, than
Large Hydro 5%
the national average.
Coal 6%
The percentage of renewable resources almost doubled
from 2009 to 2015, largely driven by increases in wind
and solar. Under state law, at least 33 percent ofN rueclteaari l9 %
electricity must come from renewable sources by 2020
and 50 percent by 2030.
Renewable 22%
Wind and Solar Are
Small Hydro 4% Largest Renewable
Biomass 12%
Geothermal 20%
Solar 27%
CF_Trends_34
Wind 37%
ARTWORK # CF_160450
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
65
Recent Legislation Requires More
Greenhouse Gas Reductions by 2030
MMtCO2e
Actual Emissions
500
450 2020 Target
400
350 Projectiona
300
250 2030 Target
200
150
100
50
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
aProjection from Air Resources Board as of October 2016 based on actions that have
been taken to achieve the 2020 target.
MMtCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly
referred to as AB 32, established a target of reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions statewide to 1990
levels by 2020.
The state developed a wide variety of regulations and
programs intended to help meet the 2020 target, including
a cap-and-trade program and a requirement to produce
33 percent of electricity from renewable sources. Under
these policies, the Air Resources Board (ARB) projects
emissions will be below the AB 32 target in 2020.
CF_Trends_38
Chapter 249 of 2016 (SB 32, Pavley) established the
Calfacts_160450
target of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030. At the time of this report, ARB is
developing a plan to achieve the new 2030 target.
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
Program Trends
66
MPA
Deputy
Transportation Funding
Comes From Multiple Sources
2016‑17
Federal
Local
Gasoline & Diesel
Excise Tax
State
Weight Fees
Cap-and-Trade
Diesel Sales Tax
Total transportation funding in the state will be
roughly $28 billion in 2016-17.
Local governments provide more than half of
all transportation funding in California. Local
transportation funding sources include local sales
taxes, transit fares, development impact fees, and
property taxes.
ARTWORK # CF_Trends_29
About one-fifth of the state’s transportation funding
comes from the federal government, supported
primarily by federal excise taxes on diesel and gasoline.
The remainder of transportation funding comes from
a variety of state revenue sources—primarily excise
taxes oTne gmaspollaintee a_nCda dliFeAseCl. TS.ait
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
Program Trends
67
Average California Driver in 2015 . . .
. . . drove 35 miles a day.
. . . used roughly 700 gallons of fuel.
. . . paid about $200 in state fuel tax, and $135
in federal fuel tax.
. . . paid about $150 in state registration and
licensing fees for each registered vehicle.
In 2015, there were 26 million licensed drivers in
California, which is about 85 percent of Californians
age 16 and older.
Traffic collisions remain a leading cause of
preventable death in California with 3,074 people
killed in crashes in 2014. California had the 16th
lowest fatality rate in the nation—0.92 fatal injuries for
every 100 million miles driven.
Roughly 85 percent of Californians drive to work alone
or in a carpool, while about 5 percent of Californians
use transit and about 4 percent walk or use a bicycle
to reach their jobs.
CF_Trends_30
Roughly 1 in every 20 passenger vehicles registered
ARTWORK # CF_160450
in California is a hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel
vehicle.
Template_CalFACTS.ait
Program Trends
68
Most State Infrastructure Spending
Is for Transportation and Education
Infrastructure Spending, 2005‑06 to 2014‑15
K-12
Resources
Transportation
Higher Education
Criminal Justice
Other
Total: $109 billion
Over the past ten years, we estimate the state spent
over $100 billion on infrastructure. More than 75 percent
of this spending was for transportation projects and
educational facilities (K-12 and higher education).
More than half of state infrastructure spending was
for local infrastructure projects (such as local schools
and roads) versus state projects (such as prisons and
highways).
CF_Trends_39
Calfacts_160450
About 60 percent of the state’s infrastructure spending
was financed using bonds. The remaining 40 percent
was paid up front, almost all from special fund revenues,
such as taxes on gas.
Program Trends
69
California Licenses Professionals
In a Wide Variety of Fields
Total Number of Licenses
Total: 6 million
Financial Services
and Insurance
Health Care
Transportation
Barbering and
Cosmetology
Other
Real Estate
Construction
Public Safety and Engineering
Teaching
and Security
We estimate that Californians hold about 6 million state
licenses or similar certifications to perform their jobs.
About 19 million Californians are in the workforce.
Nearly a third of the state’s occupational licensees are
in the health care field, such as for nurses, physical
therapists, and dental hygienists. Other professionals
licensed by the state include commercial drivers,
insurance agents, cosmetologists, teachers, and
security guards.
Nationally, the percent of the workforce licensed by
CF_Trends_45
state and local governments is estimated to have
increased fromC lesasl tfhaanc 5t spe_rc1e6nt0 in4 th5e0 early 1950s
to 25 percent in 2008.
Program Trends
70
The Unemployment Insurance (UI)
Trust Fund Insolvency Continues
(In Billions)
$15
Benefit Payments
10
5
Revenues
Year-End Fund Balances
Negative Fund
-5
Balances
-10
-15
2000 2005 2010 2015
The UI Trust Fund exhausted its reserves in 2009,
requiring the state to take on federal loans to continue
benefit payments. The balance of the fund's federal
loans, shown as negative fund balances above, is
estimated to be roughly $4 billion at the end of 2016.
The state makes annual interest payments while a loan
balance remains. In 2016, the state paid $111 million
in interest costs from the General Fund.
CF_Trends_46
The federal loans are estimated to be repaid in 2018,
Calfacts_160450
in part due to temporarily increased revenues from
federal UI taxes paid by employers. However, absent
an ongoing increase in revenues and/or reduction in
benefits, the trust fund risks returning to insolvency in
a future economic downturn.
Program Trends
71
Major State Information Technology
(IT) Projects Under Developmenta
(In Millions)
Estimated
Completion Estimated
Project Description Date Total Cost
Integrated statewide financial July 2019 $910.0
information system
(“FI$Cal”)
Statewide case management May 2020 420.8
system for child welfare
services
Electronic health record January 2020 386.5
system for corrections
system
Integrated revenue information November 2020 343.4
system for Board of
Equalization
Management information March 2021 90.3
system for food assistance
program serving women,
infants, and children
Total $2,151.0
a
The IT project to process payments for Medi-Cal fee-for-service providers is being
revised following the termination of the vendor contract and is not reflected in this
table. Prior to the contract termination, the project was estimated to cost several
hundreds of millions of dollars. It is unknown what the cost will ultimately be or
when the project will be completed.
Currently, there are 29 state IT projects approved by and
under the oversight of the Department of Technology
in various phases of development. The total cost,
should the state complete all IT projects as currently
envisioned, is estimated to be about $2.5 billion.
Program Trends
72
Gambling in California
Tribal Gaming
60 casinos
26 counties
$7 billion in revenue after winnings
CA Lottery
Around 22,000 retailers
All 58 counties
$2 billion in revenue after winnings
Cardrooms
89 cardrooms
33 counties
$850 million in revenue after winnings
Horse Racing
40 temporary and permanent facilities
21 counties
$640 million in revenue after winnings
Charitable Organizations
Bingo
Card night fundraisers