The 2021-22 Budget: “Cradle to Career” Data System

analysis full gutter The 2021-22 Budget: “Cradle to Career” Data System March 2021 Summary State Recently Initiated Planning for an for statewide scaling of the California College Integrated “Cradle to Career” Data System. Guidance Initiative (CCGI), a college planning In response to longstanding concerns that and advising tool currently used by some school California lacked an integrated education data districts. The Governor’s proposals largely reflect system that would allow policymakers, educators, the recommendations contained in the work families, and others to answer key questions group’s first report. Notably, the Governor proposes about student progression and outcomes, the to have GovOps manage the system and an 2019-20 budget package provided $10 million 18-member governing board—primarily consisting non-Proposition 98 General Fund to create such a of data providers such as the California Department system. The one-time funds were provided to the of Education and higher education segments—to Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for initial oversee the system. planning activities, including forming a multiagency Opportunities to Improve on Governor’s work group tasked with making recommendations Approach. Though these budget proposals on key components of the data system. The work have some meritorious aspects, we have several group was to transmit its recommendations to concerns with them. Our main concerns are the the Legislature through three statutorily required lack of justification for several proposals and the reports. The Legislature received the first work lack of standard project review and oversight, group report on December 31, 2020, with the which is typically provided through the California second and third work group reports anticipated Department of Technology’s (CDT’s) Project by April 1 and June 30, 2021, respectively. To Approval Lifecycle (PAL) process. Instead of the date, approximately $4 million of the original Governor’s package of proposals, we recommend appropriation has been spent, with $6 million still the Legislature take a more incremental approach— available. approving a smaller amount of remaining 2019-20 Governor Proposes to Fund Several Work funding to hire GovOps staff to begin the PAL Group Recommendations. In late January process, then wait to approve further budget 2021, the Governor notified the Legislature of requests until better cost estimates are available. his intent to authorize the remaining 2019-20 Additionally, rather than funding CCGI expansion in funds for specific start-up costs. Also in January, 2021-22, we recommend the Legislature provide the Governor proposed providing $14.5 million one-time funding for an independent evaluation, non-Proposition 98 General Fund ($11.5 million then use the results of the evaluation to inform the ongoing, $3 million one time) for various other Legislature’s next steps in 2022-23. Finally, we project costs in 2021-22, including creating a new recommend the Legislature increase the number of “Cradle to Career” office within the Government public members on the governing board so as to Operations Agency (GovOps). The Governor’s mitigate potentially negative incentives for the data 2021-22 budget request included an additional providers to control data decisions and use the $3.8 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund system primarily for their own narrower interests. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 1 analysis full gutter Introduction In this post, we (1) provide background on system), (2) describe the Governor’s proposals to progress to date toward creating an integrated fund the development of specific components of this education data system and other related data tools system, (3) assess these proposals, and (4) make (collectively referred to as the “Cradle to Career” data associated recommendations. Background In this section, we provide background on the in turn, can use the data to inform decisions state’s education data systems and recent planning about admissions and course placement. efforts to connect them. • eTranscript California. This platform transfers California’s Extensive Education System Lacks student-level course, grade, and certain Key Data Linkages. California’s education system is other data files (such as degrees earned) made up of numerous segments and other entities. electronically across California’s higher Specifically, the system includes early education education segments. Most of these electronic programs, elementary and secondary schools, transcripts are for community college students county offices of education, community colleges, applying for transfer admission to CSU or and universities in both the public and private the University of California (UC). Using funds sectors. Currently, each of these entities collects and provided by the state, the CCC Chancellor’s maintains data on its students, but the data generally Office contracts with the CCC Technology are not linked across the segments of education Center (located at Butte College) to manage (such as from high school to community college). and operate the platform. Not linking data limits the ability of policymakers, • Cal-Pass Plus. Most school districts, every educators, researchers, parents, and others to get community college, and some public and answers to many basic questions about student private four-year institutions voluntarily progression from preschool through K-12 education, participate in Cal-PASS Plus, a project overseen through higher education, and into the workforce. by the CCC Chancellor’s Office. Cal-PASS Plus Some Cross-Segmental Data Sharing links data from participating institutions, then Occurs in California. Although California has analyzes the data. It provides its findings to no comprehensive integrated data system, some participating institutions—sharing outcomes cross-segmental data efforts exist. Among the most with them so they may learn more about their notable of these efforts are: students and how to improve their outcomes. • Employment Outcomes. Each public higher • CCGI. About 100 school districts participate education segment has an agreement with the in CCGI, which a nonprofit entity administers. Employment Development Department (EDD) The state currently funds CCGI as part of the that allows it to identify the quarterly earnings California Department of Education’s (CDE) of its graduates. The data are matched using budget. Partner districts can upload verified social security numbers, which most students academic transcript data into students’ provide when they apply to college. accounts on CaliforniaColleges.edu. When students from these partner districts apply State Recently Initiated Planning for an to a California Community College (CCC) or Integrated Cradle to Career Data System. As part California State University (CSU), certain high of the 2019-20 budget package, Chapter 51 of 2019 school data is shared. The college or university, (SB 75, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) provided $10 million one-time non-Proposition 98 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 2 analysis full gutter General Fund to the OPR for initial work related on page 5 describes the state’s PAL and project to developing an integrated data system. The oversight processes. budget package included intent language that the Work Group Recommends Three Cradle to data system be built to “advance academic and Career Data Projects. The planning facilitator— governmental research on improving policies from which OPR selected to be WestEd, a nonprofit birth through career” as well as “create direct support organization based in San Francisco—convened tools for teachers, parents, advisors, and students.” the first work group planning meeting in January Of the $10 million appropriation, about $4 million 2020. The Legislature received the first required was for work group planning and related activities, work group report on December 31, 2020. The with the remaining approximately $6 million available report was delayed by six months due to scheduling for initial development of the data system. The development funds are contingent on (1) the Figure 1 Legislature’s receipt of three work 2019-20 Budget Package Required group reports (discussed in the Three Data System Planning Reportsa next paragraph), (2) approval Reports to be Submitted by Work Group Planning Facilitator to the of an expenditure plan by the Legislature and Department of Finance Department of Finance (DOF), and (3) notification to the Joint Date Due: Required Content/Recommendationsb: Legislative Budget Committee July 1, 2020 Overall structure of the data system. (JLBC). Chapter 51 identified a First Report total of 17 representatives from Received on December 31, 2020 Entity charged with managing the data system. 15 specified state entities to be Information to be available from the data system for policy making purposes. in the work group. The director of OPR was charged with contracting with an outside “planning facilitator” to support the group. October 1, 2020 Progress in preparing final report. Three Planning Documents Interim Report Required to Be Submitted to the Anticipated April 1, 2021 Legislature. The budget package required the planning facilitator to submit three reports to the Legislature and DOF that detail the January 1, 2021 How data providers will enter and correct data and Final Report ensure data quality. work group’s advice on matters Anticipated June 30, 2021 such as the type of data system How to link data across participating segments/agencies.c to create and the entity to operate How to address data security and privacy. the system. Figure 1 highlights How members of the public (including researchers) will key information to be included in be able to access the data.c each report. Though the Cradle Plans for training/support of data system users. to Career data system is an An implementation time line, including recommended data information technology (IT) project system expansions and enhancements.c and the CDT was designated as Statutory changes that may be needed for implementation. a member of the work group, Estimated costs, including ongoing costs. Chapter 51 did not require OPR to plan the data system through the CDT’s Project Approval Lifecycle a Pursuant to Chapter 51 of 2019 (SB 75, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review). b Figure highlights key components of each report. (PAL) process. The box that starts c Work group addressed in first report. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 3 analysis full gutter disruptions resulting from the pandemic. To fulfill the proposed members of the governing board. the requirements of Chapter 51, the work group The work group also recommends two advisory recommends the state fund three data projects: boards—the Data and Tools Advisory Board and the (1) an integrated education data system (referred Community Engagement Advisory Board. Whereas to in the report as a “P20W” data system) that links the first advisory board would examine whether the records from various state agencies, including CDE, data system is providing actionable information, the the higher education segments, the Commission on second advisory board would examine whether the Teacher Credentialing, EDD, and the Department of public is aware of the data system and knows how to Social Services; (2) an expansion of CCGI to school use the information in it. districts throughout the state; and (3) an upgrade ...And a Managing Entity. The governing board to eTranscript California to, among other things, would be charged with hiring an executive director, include specific skills students acquired through who would establish and operate a “Cradle to competency-based education or other forms of Career” office within the state’s GovOps. GovOps nontraditional learning. The report recommends would build and operate the data system, with rolling out these projects over a five-year period, an evaluation after five years to determine if it or starting with the integrated education data system another entity should have that role. The box on and CCGI expansion project. page 7 provides an overview of GovOps. Work Group Also Recommends a Governance Legislature Is Likely to Receive Remaining Structure... The work group also recommends Work Group Reports Later This Year. OPR that the data system be overseen by a governing indicates that the work group’s required interim board made up of 18 members, consisting report on the status and progress of the final report of: (1) 12 agencies contributing data to the will be provided to the Legislature by April 1, 2021. integrated education data system and (2) 6 public OPR indicates that the third and final report, which members—4 appointed by the Governor and will include an estimate of ongoing costs for the data 2 appointed by the Legislature. The work group system and recommendations on issues such as recommends that decisions by the governing protecting privacy and security, will be submitted to board be made by two-thirds vote. Figure 2 shows the Legislature by June 30, 2021. Figure 2 Data Providers Make Up Two-Thirds of Proposed 18-Member Governing Board Data Providers (12) Public Membersa (6) California Department of Education K-12 practitionerb California Community Colleges K-12 practitionerb California State University Public memberc University of California Public memberc Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities Public memberd Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education Public membere California Student Aid Commission Commission on Teacher Credentialing California Labor and Workforce Development Agency Employment Development Department California Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Social Services a Public members are to “represent the public beneficiaries of the Data System, including but not limited to, practitioners, families, students, adult learners and workers, community organizations, research organizations or advocates.” b Appointed by the Governor. Practitioner is “to serve as a representative of K-12 educators, counselors, and administrators.” c Appointed by the Governor. d Appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly. e Appointed by the President pro Tempore of the Senate. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 4 analysis full gutter Governor’s Proposals In this section, we describe the Governor’s Provides Both Ongoing and One-Time Funds proposals to fund the work group’s to Begin Development and Implementation recommendations. Phase. Specifically, the Governor’s budget Closely Follows Work Group’s includes: Recommendations. The Governor’s trailer bill • $14.5 million non-Proposition 98 General language largely reflects the recommendations Fund ($11.5 million ongoing, $3 million one in the work group’s first report, including the time) to GovOps. A portion of the funds composition of the governing board, the creation of would support 12 staff (including an executive two advisory groups, and identification of GovOps director) in 2021-22 at a newly created as the managing entity to incubate the Cradle to Cradle to Career office within GovOps. (The Career project. The trailer language generally defers administration proposes increasing staff to to the governing board to determine a specific time 16 in 2022-23 and providing an additional line for implementing Cradle to Career projects. $500,000 ongoing funding for GovOps at California Has a Process for Approving Information Technology (IT) Projects State Has Had Challenges Implementing IT Projects. Over the past few decades, the state has experienced considerable challenges successfully implementing IT projects. Various factors can contribute to project challenges, with one such factor being poor project planning. Several years ago, the California Department of Technology (CDT) implemented a new IT project approval process—known as the Project Approval Lifecycle (PAL)—with the goal of helping to bolster project planning and reduce the likelihood of project challenges or failure. The PAL process improves legislative oversight by requiring state entities to conduct specific planning activities, submit associated planning documents to CDT for assessment, and then share approved documents with the Legislature. These documents can give the Legislature a better understanding of, and more confidence in, the project cost, schedule, and scope prior to approving funding through the annual budget process. CDT Role Spans From Project Planning to Approval and Oversight. The PAL process has multiple stages. Each stage requires departments to conduct specific planning-related analyses and submit an associated planning document to CDT. Collectively, the planning documents from these stages form a comprehensive plan for implementing a proposed IT project. Once CDT approves a department’s proposed project, CDT’s role typically changes to providing project oversight. Specifically, CDT provides independent review of the project—monitoring whether it remains within budget, on schedule, and on track to achieve its established objectives. In its project oversight reports, CDT identifies any issues of concern, shares lessons learned from other projects, and recommends strategies to reduce project risks and fix identified issues. Most projects also contract with independent verification and validation service providers to monitor the technical implementation of the project, including code reviews and system testing. The figure on the next page shows the development of the PAL phases through project oversight. Current law generally requires the California Department of Education and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (as well as most other state agencies) to use the CDT planning process for IT projects costing more than $1 million. The California State University and University of California are not required to go through CDT’s process. (Continued on next page.) 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 5 analysis full gutter that time.) The remaining funds in 2021-22 Notifies JLBC of Intent to Spend Remaining would be used to cover various operating and 2019-20 Funds. In addition, in January 2021, DOF technology acquisition costs related to the sent notification to JLBC of the administration’s integrated data system, including funds to intent to spend the remaining $6 million from the upgrade CDE’s K-12 database. 2019-20 appropriation for initial costs related to • $3.8 million ongoing Proposition 98 General the integrated education data system and CCGI Fund to increase the number of CCGI expansion. Specifically, the administration would partner school districts. To support statewide begin to use the funds in the current year to (1) hire expansion, funding is also provided to allow interim staff at GovOps, (2) commence a pilot CCGI to receive data directly from CDE’s (proof of concept) for the integrated education data K-12 database. (CCGI currently receives data system, (3) begin to scale CCGI (primarily in the directly from each partner school district.) Central Valley), and (4) support various one-time Stages of the PAL Process and Post-Approval Project Oversight State Process for Planning and Overseeing IT Projects Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Business Alternatives Solution Project Readiness Analysis Analysis Development and Approval Identify Programmatic Assess Existing Solution Requirements Solicitation Release Problem/Opportunity Programming Processes Solicitation Development Select Vendor Establish Business Market Research Case/Need Contract Management Develop Mid-Level Identify Objectives Solution Requirements Baseline Project Assess Departmental Identify Solution CDT Decision Readiness Alternatives Recommend Solution CDT Decision CDT Decision Financial Analysis CDT Decision Concurrent Upon approval, entities can request planning Project Oversight funds to complete the AAwwaarrdd CCoonnttrraacctt PAL processa Independent project oversight aanndd SSttaarrtt PPrroojjeecctt Upon approval, entities (typically provided by CDT) can request funds DDeevveellooppmmeenntt aanndd for project development Independent verification and validation IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonncc = Reject and implementationb (typically provided by a vendor) = Rethink and Resubmit = Approve a Budget requests can be for a single stage (particularly for complex and costly IT projects) or for multiple stages. In either case, legislative approval is required. b Budget requests for starting development and implementation can be submitted before completing the PAL process (after Stage 2 or Stage 3) or upon completing the PAL process (after Stage 4). Regardless of when requested, legislative approval is required. c After the contract is awarded and the project begins, the Legislature often considers and approves budget requests for further development and implementation on an annual basis. PAL = Project Approval Lifecycle; IT = information technology; and CDT = California Department of Technology. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 6 analysis full gutter Government Operations (GovOps) Agency Oversees Various Departments GovOps, which was created in 2013, oversees 10 state departments employing a total of about 15,000 state employees. The departments GovOps oversees include the Department of General Services, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Public Employees’ Retirement System, as well as the Department of Technology. GovOps itself consists of 57 authorized positions. One of its core functions is to coordinate cross-departmental projects and assist other departments that are experiencing significant operational challenges. For example, in recent years, GovOps has managed efforts to improve services at the Department of Motor Vehicles and identified the causes of unemployment insurance payment delays at the Employment Development Department. technology and software acquisition costs. In Cradle to Career data system projects (consisting February 2021, DOF agreed to give JLBC until April of the integrated education data system as well 15, 2021 to decide whether to concur with this as CCGI and eTranscript California expansions). expenditure request. To the extent such estimates are available in 2021-22 Budget Proposal Could Change at time (such as in the April 1, 2021 interim report), May Revision. As mentioned earlier, the work DOF has indicated it would consider revisions to group’s final legislative report is required to include the Governor’s budget proposals as part of the estimates of ongoing costs for its recommended May Revision. Assessment In this section, we provide our assessment of disaggregated by gender, racial/ethnic group, the Governor’s proposals (for both current- and and other demographics—after leaving their budget-year spending). While we agree with the particular education segment, thereby providing Governor that having an integrated education greater insight into the effectiveness of current data system would be an asset for the state and practices. Figure 3 on the next page provides GovOps is a reasonable managing entity for that examples of the kinds of crosscutting policy system, we have a number of concerns with the questions the Legislature, educators, and others administration’s proposed approach. Below, we could answer with an integrated data system. identify the meritorious aspects of the Governor’s Tasking GovOps With Managing System proposals, then turn to our concerns. Could Further State Synergies. GovOps does An Integrated Education Data System not have any particular experience or expertise Could Have Significant State- and Local-Level with developing and implementing data systems. Benefits. The administration’s goal to create an Charging GovOps with managing the Cradle to integrated education data system for California is in Career data system, however, does have some line with a longstanding priority of the Legislature. potential advantages. In particular, GovOps Such a data system could give the Legislature a is working to improve how the state collects, more holistic view of the state’s education system manages, and uses data through its Statewide Data and allow policymakers to make more informed Strategy. This initiative, which is led by the state’s budget and policy decisions. An integrated data Chief Data Officer, is focused on aligning other system also could provide more information to integrated data system development efforts in the educators about what happens to their students— state, standardizing interagency data exchange 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 7 analysis full gutter agreements, and developing a statewide approach asserts that given CCGI and eTranscript California to data literacy and data skills training. We believe are managed by nonstate entities that would opportunities exist to create synergies between enter into a contractual relationship with the these existing state efforts and the proposed Cradle to Career governing board, those projects education data system. A new office within GovOps are not subject to the PAL process. Given the thus could be a reasonable place to incubate the administration identifies potential data flows and Cradle to Career data system. information sharing between the three projects, Several Concerns With Project Planning however, we believe CCGI and eTranscript and Oversight Processes. CDT’s PAL process California also should go through the PAL process. was designed to improve the quality of IT projects Proposed Budget Makes Number of and provide the Legislature with a more complete Unsubstantiated Assumptions, Lacks Basic plan and set of cost estimates before funding the Details. The Governor’s estimates of one-time and project. As noted earlier, the Cradle to Career data ongoing project costs use a number of assumptions system currently is not being planned through PAL. that are based on incomplete information. The administration has indicated that it expects Typically, agencies undertake market research to the integrated education data system project to identify what technical solutions are available for use the PAL process, but the administration is a project and determine how much it would cost unclear at what point the project will enter that to implement those solutions consistent with a process. In addition, the administration is not clear project’s system requirements. The administration whether there will be independent project oversight conducted some market research to estimate some and independent verification and validation of the one-time costs, but other one-time and ongoing project, which also are typical for state IT projects. project costs appear to be rough estimates based Furthermore, the administration has indicated it on one other state data system. For example, the does not expect CCGI or eTranscript California to administration indicates that some of its estimates go through the PAL process. The administration were based on what it cost the state to develop Figure 3 Questions That Could Be Answered With an Integrated Eduction Data System • Which early education programs and services have the greatest effect on reading and comprehension in elementary school? • What are the demographic, program, and course-taking profiles of K-12 students who enroll or do not enroll in postsecondary education? • What are the characteristics and educational paths of students who drop out of high school but eventually enroll in a postsecondary institution? • What specific high school programs are associated with better postsecondary outcomes for low-income students? • What are the postsecondary enrollment and completion patterns of students in high school career technical education (CTE) pathway programs compared with similar students not in a CTE pathway? • Does dual (concurrent) enrollment by high school students in college courses promote more timely and efficient completion of associate and bachelor’s degree programs? • Do students who earn an associate degree for transfer (ADT) at a community college end up taking fewer total units to earn a bachelor’s degree than students who transfer without an ADT? • Are students receiving Cal Grant competitive awards more likely to enroll and graduate from college than those eligible students who just missed the cut-off for getting awards? • What are the employment outcomes of graduates from CSU and UC teacher preparation programs? • Which health and social service programs are most closely associated with improved educational outcomes of K-12 and college students? 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 8 analysis full gutter a data system on homelessness, scaled up to • What are the reasons why non-partner school take into account the much larger scope of the districts have chosen not to participate in integrated education data system. This approach CCGI to date? to estimating costs is not standard practice and • What is the impact of CCGI on student can result in inaccurate cost estimates. Other data outcomes? For example, to what extent are systems can have significantly different technical students who use CCGI more likely to enroll requirements resulting in different project solutions in college than their peers who do not use that have much higher or lower costs than the CCGI? To what extent do differences exist proposed project. Also a departure from standard among students by gender or from certain state budget practices, the Governor’s budget does racial/ethnic groups? not provide workload justification for the requested The administration has indicated that while its GovOps positions. The administration indicates current proposal is to provide $3.8 million ongoing that it expects the work group to provide workload for CCGI, at full implementation ongoing costs justification later in the spring. Much of this basic could be about $20 million annually. (The final cost and staffing information, however, would have legislative report is expected to include updated been made available to the Legislature had the cost estimates for the project.) We believe the work group used CDT’s PAL process. Legislature should have answers to the above Premature to Scale CCGI Without Evaluation. types of questions before embarking on a costly CCGI has a number of features designed to help expansion of CCGI. students, parents, and counselors. For example, Insufficient Role for Non-Data Providers CCGI provides students with information about the and Legislature on Governing Board. While college and financial aid application process, and it proposing to reserve one-third of governing board provides an education planner that allows students seats for public members is a good start, we and high school counselors in partner districts to believe having greater public representation would track progress toward meeting CSU and UC course have certain benefits. Most notably, having more eligibility requirements. Though these types of public representation on the governing board is an features have the potential to be beneficial, to date, important way to mitigate the possibility of data the Legislature has not provided funding specifically providers using the system primarily to further for an independent, comprehensive evaluation segment-specific interests. This is a particularly and CCGI has not used its base funding for such important issue given that the Governor’s proposed an evaluation. As a result, the Legislature lacks trailer bill language tasks the governing board basic information on CCGI’s usage and outcomes. with developing the data-request process used by For example, the Legislature cannot answer the education researchers and other members of the following questions: public. Historically, certain segments have been • To what extent are CCGI’s various features reluctant to approve such requests and share data. currently used by students, schools, We also believe the Legislature should have a larger community colleges, and universities? role in selecting members of the governing board. • Which particular features or services do they Under the Governor’s proposal, the Governor would find most valuable? get to select four public members while the Senate • If certain features are not widely used, why and Assembly combined would get to select only not? Could modifications be made to CCGI two public members. so these features are more useful for students and other potential users? 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 9 analysis full gutter Recommendations In this section, we make several recommendations the staff necessary to begin the PAL process. The designed to improve on the Governor’s proposals. next paragraph provides an illustration of what an Require Administration to Use Standard alternative 2021-22 budget might look under our Approval and Oversight Processes. Given the recommended approach. state’s mixed track record with IT projects, we LAO Budget Alternative Funds Some Staff recommend the Legislature specify in statute and Start-Up Activities While Awaiting Better (such as through trailer bill language) that the Information. Figure 4 on the next page compares administration use the PAL process to plan the entire the Governor’s budget proposals with an LAO Cradle to Career data system (including CCGI and budget alternative. Our alternative would designate eTranscript California), as well as have independent $1.2 million in remaining 2019-20 funds for board oversight, verification, and validation of the system meetings and some GovOps project staff as well upon completing the PAL process. We note that the as knowledge transfer activities from WestEd to administration can submit the project through the GovOps. (As discussed in the next paragraph, our PAL process now, and CDT can use the project’s LAO alternative also includes a small amount of prior planning efforts to help it decide at what stage 2019-20 funds for CCGI.) At this time, the alternative of the PAL process the project should begin. The would not fund the costs of the pilot or technology project therefore would not be significantly delayed procurement activities, as these components would because of the requirement to use the PAL process. be undergoing further analysis as part of the PAL Furthermore, CDT could determine that CCGI and process. Upon completing the PAL process, better eTranscipt California are largely updates to existing estimates of these costs, as well as other potential IT systems that are low risk. In this case, CDT could project costs, would be available. We recommend delegate those projects back to their respective the administration submit a future budget request on administering entities to complete the planning these project components once more reliable cost phase. If the Legislature subsequently approved and estimates are available. funded those projects, they then could proceed with Fund CCGI Evaluation. Instead of providing development and implementation without needing to funding for CCGI expansion in 2021-22, we complete the rest of the PAL process. recommend the Legislature provide one-time Require Administration to Provide More funding for an evaluation and then use the results Justification for Budget Requests. We also of the evaluation to inform the Legislature’s next recommend the Legislature request that the steps in 2022-23. Based on our discussions with administration provide additional information evaluation firms, we believe that about $250,000 that would support its budget proposals. At a would be sufficient for such a study. The study could minimum, we recommend the Legislature request: commence some research activities in summer (1) market research that evaluates available 2021, with other activities (especially those involving technical solutions for the system and estimates student feedback) commencing in fall 2021, with the one-time and ongoing project costs based on findings provided to the Legislature by spring 2022. system requirements, (2) a schedule for completion Increase Public Representation on Governing of project activities, and (3) workload justifications for Board. Finally, we recommend the Legislature the requested GovOps positions. In the absence of increase the number of non-data providers (public this information, we recommend the Legislature wait representatives) on the governing board so they are to approve the Governor’s budget request until the at least equal to—if not greater than—the number project completes at least Stage 2 (the Alternatives of seats held by the data providers. We further Analysis) of the PAL process. In the meantime, the recommend specifying that the public members Legislature could consider approving some amount include representatives from the administration as of remaining 2019-20 funding for GovOps to hire well as bipartisan representation from the Legislature. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 10 analysis full gutter Figure 4 Comparing Governor’s January Proposals With LAO Alternative 2021-22a (In Thousands) January Proposalsb Section Governor’s LAO Letter Budget Total Alternative One-Time Costs Start-up administration $1,779 — $1,779 $1,159c CCGI 1,596 — 1,596 250 Integrated education data system pilot 1,110 — 1,110 — Other technology/development costs 1,514 $3,486 5,000 — Totals $6,000 $3,486 $9,486 $1,409 Ongoing Costs Technology/software — $6,590 $6,590 — CCGI — 3,777 3,777 — Admininstration/GovOps staffd — 2,473 2,473 — CalPADS integratione — 1,702 1,702 — Data staff for data providers — 750 750 — Totals — $15,292 $15,292 —f a The section letter would authorize some spending in the last quarter of the 2020-21 fiscal year. b Costs would be supported with non-Proposition 98 General Fund, except for $3.8 million ongoing CCGI costs, which would be supported with Proposition 98 General Fund. c Includes $100,000 for governing and advisory board meetings in 2021-22. Total funding for start-up administration under this alternative approach could change depending on the specific staff and activities the Legislature were to decide to authorize. d The administration proposes creating a “Cradle to Career” office within GovOps. Proposed funds would support 12 GovOps staff in 2021-22, growing to 16 staff in 2022-23. e The Department of Finance characterizes these costs as primarily related to the development of the integrated education data system, with some funding supporting the CCGI project. f Under the LAO Alternative, ongoing costs would be funded once the project has entered the PAL process, better cost estimates are available, and the administration has submitted a future corresponding budget request. CCGI = California College Guidance Initiative; GovOps = Government Operations Agency; CalPADS = California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System; and PAL = Project Approval Lifecycle. LAO Publications This report was prepared by Paul Steenhausen, with major contributions from Brian Metzker, and additional support from Chas Alamo and Amy Li. It was reviewed by Jennifer Pacella and Anthony Simbol. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. 2021-22 LAO Budget Series 11