An Analysis of the University of California’s Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs

An Analysis of the University of California’s Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST JANUARY 2022 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Executive Summary The University of California (UC) Operates Two Main Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs. One program—Agricultural Experiment Stations—supports basic and applied research at the Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside campuses. The other program—Cooperative Extension—conducts applied research and provides outreach to stakeholders across the state. Both programs were established by the federal government more than 100 years ago. Over the years, they have broadened their scope to include research and outreach in areas such as drought and wildfire mitigation. UC Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) Division Administers Programs. A division of the UC Office of the President (located in Oakland), UC ANR is responsible for administering these programs. In practice, UC ANR focuses the bulk of its efforts on Cooperative Extension— overseeing the activities of Cooperative Extension researchers and practitioners working at UC campuses as well as at county-based extension offices and Research and Extension Centers. Campus deans and UC ANR jointly oversee the experiment stations. State Is a Major Fund Source for Both Programs, but State Now Budgets for Programs Differently. Though receiving funds from several sources, both Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension receive more than half of their ongoing operating support from the state General Fund. Historically, UC determined how much state funding from its main budget appropriation to allocate to these programs. In 2018-19, the state began setting the funding amount for UC ANR (specifically, Cooperative Extension) in the annual budget act. In contrast to Cooperative Extension, UC continues to decide how much of its main General Fund appropriation to provide Agricultural Experiment Stations. Three Concerns With State Oversight of Programs. First, the state has considerably less information, budgetary control, and oversight of Agricultural Experiment Stations than it does of Cooperative Extension despite the two programs being intended to work in concert to address pressing agricultural and natural resource issues. Second, the Legislature lacks sufficient budgetary information from UC to adjust funding for these programs on an annual basis. Third, the state does not receive regular performance reporting on both programs despite comprising the largest source of ongoing funding. Three Recommendations for Enhancing Legislative Oversight. First, we recommend the Legislature include state General Fund for Agricultural Experiment Stations in the existing UC ANR budget item, thereby budgeting for both programs directly. Second, we recommend the Legislature require UC to submit a budget report in late fall each year providing key information on anticipated operational cost increases. Third, we recommend requiring UC to report periodically to the Legislature on the activities and outcomes of Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension. Together, these actions would improve budget transparency, provide the information needed to make informed budget decisions moving forward, and enhance legislative oversight of the programs. www.lao.ca.gov 1 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Report Examines University of California’s a more proactive role, especially in setting program (UC) Agricultural and Natural Resource funding levels. This report aims both to improve the Programs. UC’s agricultural and natural resource Legislature’s understanding of these programs and programs date back nearly to the university’s assist future state budget decisions. The report has founding. Historically, the Legislature has granted three parts. The first part provides background on UC significant flexibility to design and implement UC’s agricultural and natural resource programs. these programs, including determining program The second part provides a high-level assessment, goals, setting funding levels, and tracking and the third part provides recommendations for outcomes. In recent years, the state has taken improving legislative oversight of these programs. BACKGROUND In this section, we begin with an overview Land Grant Universities Implement These of university agricultural and natural resource Programs. As Figure 1 shows, Congress created programs, next discuss the structure of these programs more than 100 years ago through UC’s programs, and then provide staffing and three key statutes. The first of these statutes—the budget information for UC’s programs. Morrill Act—granted states land to establish public universities focused on instruction in agriculture Overview and other subjects. Years later, Congress provided Federal Government Supports Two Main ongoing funding to these institutions—now known University Agricultural Programs. The National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—a division Figure 1 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture—provides funding to universities in each state to implement UC’s Agricultural Programs Trace two programs, described below. Roots Back to Three Federal Acts Summary of Landmark Federal Acts by Year • Agricultural Experiment Stations. Agricultural Experiment Stations (also referred to as “experiment stations” in this report) are research centers at universities that focus 1862 Morrill Land Grant College Act on agriculture and natural resources, among Provided each state with federal funding to establish “land other related topics. These centers primarily grant universities” that focus on “...branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts...” support basic research, though some projects “...without excluding other scientific and classical studies focus on applied research. As part of their and including military tactic...” participation in this program, universities must 1887 submit and receive approval from NIFA for Hatch Act their associated research projects. Provided land grant universities ongoing funding to establish “agricultural experiment stations” that conduct • Cooperative Extension. The national research on agricultural issues. Cooperative Extension System supports a network of campus and community-based 1914 experts conducting applied research Smith-Lever Act Provided land grant universities ongoing funding to create and outreach to farmers, industry, and a national “cooperative extension” system, providing other stakeholders. The program consists community-based extended education on agricultural issues for farmers, youth, and industry, among other of a partnership between the federal groups of stakeholders. government, public research universities, and local governments. www.lao.ca.gov 3 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT as “land grant universities”—to implement the Working within these few parameters, NIFA and Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative land grant universities set specific program Extension programs. According to NIFA, these goals. In its guidance to land grant universities, programs helped secure the nation’s food supply NIFA identifies several overarching program goals, and agricultural workforce during the world wars such as promoting food security, developing rural and Great Depression, as well as boosted American economies, and promoting American agricultural agricultural productivity in the postwar years. exports. As a condition of receiving federal Today, land grant universities in each state continue funding, universities must align their research to administer federal agricultural research and and outreach activities with these program goals. extension programs. The UC system is California’s As Figure 2 shows, UC has developed more land grant institution (established using funds from specific long- and near-term program goals, such the sale of land granted to the state under the as building climate-resilient ecosystems and Morrill Act). strengthening research partnerships. According Scope of Programs Have Broadened. to UC, these goals are periodically reviewed Over the years, the federal government, states, and updated to reflect new developments and and land grant universities have expanded the emerging issues. scope and specific activities undertaken by the Programs Report a Wide Variety of experiment stations and Cooperative Extension. Outcomes. Each year, UC summarizes program These changes have been particularly notable outcomes for the experiment stations and for Cooperative Extension, which supports many Cooperative Extension, submitting an over additional activities compared to when it was 100-page report to the federal government and first established in the early 20th century. For example, in the Figure 2 1970s, the federal government UC Has Developed Long- and established and began funding Near-Term Program Goals a new Cooperative Extension Program Goals as of December 2021 nutrition education program. At about the same time, several Long-Term Goals land grant universities (including • Promote economic prosperity in California. UC) created the Cooperative • Develop a qualified workforce for California. Extension Master Gardener • Safeguard abundant and healthy food for all Californians. program, and, in California, the • Protect California’s natural resources. • Build climate-resilient communities and ecosystems. state began providing ongoing • Promote healthy people and communities. Cooperative Extension funding for • Develop an inclusive and equitable society. a new pest management program. Near-Term Goals As a result of these and many other • Strengthen research and extension partnerships. changes, land grant universities • Increase online tools and outreach. today manage large and varied • Build sustainable economies for working landscapes. portfolios of research and outreach • Scale up innovation and entrepreneurship programs. activities covering many national, • Modernize digital platforms that support programs. • Improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in UC’s programs and work environments. state, and local issues. • Recruit, develop, and retain employees. UC Has Developed Goals • Support volunteerism. for These Programs. Federal • Generate revenue and optimize resource deployment. statute sets broad policy goals • Increase philanthropic donations. • Improve efficiency and strengthen infrastructure. for experiment stations and • Strengthen communication and advocacy. Cooperative Extension, whereas Note: Long-term goals come from UC Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) division’s “Public California state law generally Values Statements.” Near-term goals come from UC ANR’s 2020-2025 Strategic Plan. Goals is silent on these programs. generally apply to both Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative Extension. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT making an approximately 20-page report available UC Cooperative Extension Operates Out to the general public. In 2019-20, UC reported of Numerous Sites. Though some Cooperative that the experiment stations and Cooperative Extension program staff also are located on Extension together produced 20 new ideas leading UC campuses, many Cooperative Extension staff to patents, including the invention of new crop work at off-campus sites. UC has Cooperative varieties. In addition, the programs sponsored Extension offices in 57 of the state’s 58 counties, a combined 1,150 policy engagement activities, with multiple offices in some counties (Figure 3). created 2,240 educational materials, provided UC ANR typically leases these offices from county over 30,000 workshops and meetings, and had governments. UC ANR also owns and manages 708,400 unique educational interactions with adults nine sites known as “Research and Extension and youth. The programs’ activities, workshops, Centers.” These centers support specialized and interactions spanned various groups and applied research and host outreach activities. topics, ranging from workshops for farmers seeking UC Cooperative Extension experts conduct most of to learn new agricultural techniques to agricultural the research at these centers, but they allow other educational programs for youth. researchers from UC and external institutions also to use the facilities. Structure Cooperative Extension Also Administers UC’s Programs Are Overseen by a Central 13 Statewide Programs. As Figure 4 on Office. UC’s agricultural and natural resource page 7 shows, these programs span various programs have a complex administrative areas, including gardening, nutrition education, structure. The UC division of Agriculture and and pest management. These programs vary Natural Resources (UC ANR)—a functional unit in geographic footprint, staff, and scope. For of the UC Office of the President, located in example, the UC Master Gardener Program Oakland—is the core administering body and is operates in numerous counties, relies heavily on overseen by an executive Vice President. Formally, volunteers, and focuses on home horticulture, UC ANR oversees both Agricultural Experiment pest management, and landscaping, among other Stations and Cooperative Extension. In practice, topics. In contrast, another program—the Nutrition however, the bulk of the division’s oversight and Policy Institute—is a single research institute activities is focused on Cooperative Extension. located on the Berkeley campus that hires only UC Has Four Experiment Stations. As Figure 3 paid research experts who focus almost exclusively on the next page shows, these four “stations” are on nutrition research and program evaluation for embedded within certain academic departments certain nutrition education programs. at the Berkeley, Davis, and Riverside campuses. Employees Specifically, each of these campuses has a college focusing on agriculture and natural resources that Faculty Conduct Research at the Experiment supports experiment station research, as does Stations. At UC, Agricultural Experiment Station UC Davis’s School of Veterinary Medicine. The researchers are tenured or tenure-track faculty. four deans of these particular colleges oversee their Unlike most faculty members, who are expected to respective experiment stations in partnership with divide their time between instruction, research, and UC ANR. Faculty receiving experiment station funds public service, faculty at the experiment stations focus their efforts on federally approved research are expected to devote their time primarily to their projects. Faculty within these colleges also conduct federally approved research projects. Many faculty, other research outside of NIFA-approved projects. however, have joint appointments at the experiment This other research is supported by various stations and general campuses and thus divide fund sources, including state General Fund and their time between their federally approved projects competitive grants and contracts from other federal and their general instruction and other research and state agencies. responsibilities. According to UC, experiment stations employ over 550 researchers conducting over 1,300 research projects annually. www.lao.ca.gov 5 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Figure 3 UC's Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs Have Large State Footprint Intermountain Agricultural Experiment Station Research and Extension Center Local Cooperative Extension Office Sierra Foothill Hopland UC Davis UC Berkeley UC Office of the President Kearney West Side Lindcove Hansen UC Riverside South Coast Desert 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Specialists and Advisors Are Key Academic Figure 4 Employees at Cooperative Extension. In contrast Cooperative Extension to faculty at the experiment stations, academic employees at UC Cooperative Extension historically Statewide Programs have not held faculty titles. Rather, academic Cover Many Areas employees at Cooperative Extension generally fall Programs Operating in 2021 into one of two groups: Volunteer-Based Programs • Specialists. Specialists are located on 4-H Youth Development UC campuses and tend to focus their efforts UC Master Gardener Program on statewide or regional issues. Of the UC Master Food Preserver Program 104 full-time equivalent (FTE) specialists UC California Naturalist employed in 2019-20, a majority (62) were Nutrition Education Programs located at UC Davis, followed by UC Berkeley Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (18) and UC Riverside (17). A handful of CalFresh Healthy Living specialists are located at three additional Research Institutes and Programs campuses (Merced, Santa Barbara, and Informatics and Geographic Information Systems Program Agricultural Issues Center Santa Cruz), and a small number are located UC Integrated Pest Management at on- or off-campus sites implementing UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Cooperative Extension statewide programs. Nutrition Policy Institute (In recent years, some specialists have had UC Organic Agriculture Institute joint appointments as experiment station California Institute for Water Resources researchers and/or general campus faculty. These specialists divide their time and responsibilities accordingly.) Figure 5 • Advisors. Advisors also are subject matter Central Valley Counties Have the Most experts but work off campus in Cooperative Cooperative Extension Advisors Extension county offices or Research and Full-Time Equivalent Advisors in 2019-20 Extension Centers. Advisors are expected to be closely involved in their local communities, Central Valley 56 tailoring their research and outreach activities Bay Area 21 to community needs. As Figure 5 shows, of Northern California 21 Central Coast 16 the 150 FTE advisors employed in 2019-20, Sierra Nevada 9 Central Valley counties had the most advisors, Los Angeles-Orange 8 likely due to the region’s disproportionate San Diego-Imperial 8 share of agricultural production in California. Inland Empire 7 Statewide institutes/programs 4 Beyond specialists and advisors, Cooperative Total 150 Extension employs a handful of academic employees with other job titles, such as research support various program implementation functions. scientists and program coordinators. In 2019-20, For example, these staff help implement Master 32 FTE employees fell into one of these other Gardener and 4-H youth development programs categories. Most of these academic experts at the local level. Nonacademic staff also provide work in one of Cooperative Extension’s statewide basic administrative services—for example, institutes or programs. processing payroll and performing clerical duties. Nonacademic Staff Help Deliver Cooperative Central leadership and administrative staff at Extension Programs. In addition to academic UC ANR also are included in this count. experts, Cooperative Extension employed 738 nonacademic staff in 2019-20. These staff www.lao.ca.gov 7 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT Budget UC ANR Administers Some, Though Not All, Funds. UC ANR primarily oversees federal, state, Programs Receive Funding From Several and university funding for Cooperative Extension. Sources. As Figure 6 shows, the state is by far (Local support for Cooperative Extension typically the largest contributor of ongoing operating funds is arranged through local agreements between for both the experiment stations and Cooperative county extension offices and their constituent Extension. NIFA also provides ongoing federal county governments.) UC ANR also administers support—known as “capacity grants”—to these federal capacity grants to the experiment stations. programs. Federal capacity grant allocations are UC ANR, however, does not administer state based primarily on each state’s rural and farm funding for the experiment stations. Rather, the population. States are required to match federal university allocates these funds directly to the capacity grant funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. stations, which, in turn, allocate them among their As evident from the figure, ongoing state support specific research projects. Experiment station in California far exceeds the required state match. faculty also apply directly for competitive grants UC Cooperative Extension also receives ongoing without direct involvement from UC ANR. support from UC-generated sources (such as endowment income) and local governments, State Recently Began Line-Item Budgeting with a portion of local support reflecting in-kind UC ANR. Historically, the state granted UC resources (such as county facilities or equipment). significant discretion to determine how much of In addition to ongoing funds, researchers and staff UC’s state funding to provide to the experiment in both programs apply for one-time competitive stations and Cooperative Extension. As Figure 7 grants to support specific research and outreach shows, the state began changing its approach projects. These competitive grants come from a few years ago, becoming more proactive in federal, state, and private sources, but the federal setting Cooperative Extension funding levels. government is the largest source of this funding. As of 2021-22, the state budget contains a line item Figure 6 General Fund Is Largest Ongoing Fund Source for UC's Agricultural and Natural Resource Programs 2019-20 External Grants and General General Contracts Fund Agricultural Fund Experiment Cooperative Stations Extension $283 Million $215 Million External Grants and Federal Contracts Funds Local Support UC Income Federal Funds One-Time Funds Ongoing Funds 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT specifically for UC ANR. This line item provides Cooperative Extension Received Significant greater transparency over ANR budgeting and Augmentation in 2021-22. The state budget gives the Legislature easier control over making recovered quickly from the initial effects of the annual Cooperative Extension funding adjustments. pandemic, with the state effectively able to restore The line item solely contains state funding for previous funding levels moving forward as well as Cooperative Extension, with state funding for the provide significant augmentations in 2021-22. For experiment stations still embedded within UC’s UC ANR specifically, the state provided $108 million main budget appropriation (meaning UC still ongoing General Fund in 2021-22, a 70 percent effectively decides how much to provide for the increase over the 2020-21 level. (By comparison, stations each year). ongoing funding for the university as a whole Historically, Ongoing Funding for Cooperative increased 16 percent.) The budget appropriation Extension Has Been Somewhat Flat. Though was sufficient not only to restore the previous year’s UC has not officially compiled comprehensive reductions but also support around 110 additional historical budget information (from all fund sources) specialists and advisors. Moreover, the state for the experiment stations and Cooperative provided $3 million one-time funding to UC ANR Extension, UC ANR staff indicated to our office for limited-term fire advisor positions and one-time that its state and federal capacity grant funding in 2019-20 is at about the same level as it was in 2000-01, even before accounting for the effects of Figure 7 inflation. According to UC ANR staff, flat funding State Has Adjusted UC ANR Funding combined with rising staff costs has contributed Approach Over the Years to two notable program effects. First, the number of Cooperative Extension specialists and advisors has declined, dropping from more than 400 in Through 2016-17 2000-01 to under 300 in 2019-20. Second, The state annually adjusted UC’s budget, and UC UC ANR indicates specialists and advisors have determined level of state funding to provide UC ANR. increasingly relied on external grants and contracts to support their research and outreach projects. 2017-18 In the annual budget act, the state specified a certain (Comparable information is not available for the amount of funding for the UC Office of the President experiment stations, but state funding for this (UCOP), with ANR funding embedded within this amount. program likely increased over the same time period. This is because UC provides campuses annual 2018-19 In annual budget act, the state retained the UCOP line adjustments for this program based on changes item and added budget bill language specifying in overall UC support, and overall state support has $73 million General Fund for UC ANR. grown notably.) 2019-20 Cooperative Extension, Unlike Experiment General Fund support for UC ANR remained at $73 million. Stations, Experienced Notable State Funding Reduction During Onset of Pandemic. In 2020-21 response to an anticipated budget crisis stemming In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the state from the onset of the coronavirus disease reduced General Fund support for UC ANR—providing $63 million, reflecting a $9.2 million (13 percent) reduction. 2019 pandemic, the state enacted a 13 percent reduction to UC ANR and thus to Cooperative 2021-22 Extension in 2020-21. (The state similarly The state eliminated the UCOP line item but created enacted a 13 percent reduction to UC’s central a line item solely for UC ANR. The state provided UC ANR with $108 million ongoing General Fund, reflecting a administrative services. Campuses received a $45 million (70 percent) increase over the 2020-21 level. smaller percent reduction at 7.7 percent.) Despite This amount fully restored reductions from the previous facing notable reductions, data from the UC Office year and provided an augmentation for operating cost increases and more specialists and advisors. the President show that the university maintained funding for the experiment stations, with station ANR = Agriculture and Natural Resources and COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019. funding growing by 1 percent in 2020-21. www.lao.ca.gov 9 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT activities at the Nutrition Policy Institute. UC also Figure 8 is increasing funding for the experiment stations, UC Davis and County Offices Receive though the UC Office of the President has not yet publicly indicated exactly how much of an increase the Most Programmatic Funding it will provide. Funding Allocations (In Millions), 2019-20 Funding Allocations Linked to Program Size. As the top part of Figure 8 shows, UC Davis Agricultural Experiment Stations Davis $157 receives more than half of experiment station funds, Riverside 71 reflecting that this campus has two stations. As the Berkeley 55 bottom part of the figure shows, county offices Total $283 receive the most funding in Cooperative Extension, Cooperative Extension reflecting that these offices contain the largest County offices $92 share of academic and nonacademic employees. Campus-based research and outreach 55 Administration/other 25 Statewide programs and institutes 27 Research and Extension Centers 16 Total $215 ASSESSMENT State Has Role in Supporting Agricultural information for the Agricultural Experiment Stations. and Natural Resource Programs. The state Budget information for Cooperative Extension was perennially faces agricultural and natural resource much more readily available. For example, while challenges that require concerted, sustained existing university budget displays show how funds effort to address. Often these types of issues are allocated within Cooperative Extension, the involve inherent collective action problems, where university took several weeks to provide information individual companies or groups lack incentive to on how much General Fund is allocated to each fully address the issues on their own. For example, experiment station, and UC could not provide developing alternative pest-management practices a breakdown of spending within each station. that reduce pesticide use is costly, yet, once The lack of comparably detailed information on developed and implemented, the new practices can experiment station funding likely is a function of accrue statewide benefits to many companies and UC ANR’s more limited role in overseeing and groups. Also, in some cases, the state is in a better administering funds for that program. Compounding position than companies and local governments this lack of transparency, the Legislature does not to lead and coordinate responses to agricultural line-item budget the experiment station budget and natural resource-related challenges. Moreover, like it does for Cooperative Extension, even though the state can use agricultural and natural resource both programs are intended to address key state programs to promote equity—ensuring small agricultural and natural resource issues in a farmers, rural communities, and other stakeholders coordinated effort. with limited resources have access to accurate and State Lacks Sufficient Information for credible information as well as technical assistance Annually Adjusting Program Funding Levels. and support. Another shortcoming with budgeting for the Experiment Station Budget Lacks programs is the limited fiscal information Transparency. Though we believe the state has currently available to the Legislature. Though a role in supporting these programs, we identified UC annually provides some information on past some shortcomings with the ways the programs are Cooperative Extension spending, it does not currently budgeted and overseen. One shortcoming provide comparable, past spending information we encountered was in obtaining basic budget for the experiment stations. Moreover, it does not 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT provide information on cost pressures and staffing Though UC ANR publicly releases an annual report needs for the upcoming budget year for either the that highlights notable accomplishments, the report experiment stations or Cooperative Extension. does not provide the Legislature a consistent set State Lacks Oversight and Accountability of metrics to regularly track. Without this type of Over Programs. Despite having a compelling performance reporting, the state will continue to interest in the programs and being their primary have difficulty knowing if program activities are source of ongoing funding, the state lacks two other well aligned with its program goals and meeting key avenues for overseeing these programs and those goals effectively. Though we heard many holding UC accountable. First, the programs lack anecdotes from stakeholders of experiment station clear state goals. Having clearly defined statutory and Cooperative Extension activities with clear goals enables the Legislature to ensure spending statewide and local benefits, the state has not set decisions and program activities are aligned with forth any specific outcomes measures by which state needs. Second, the Legislature lacks regular it intends to assess the effectiveness of these reporting on program activities and outcomes. programs on a regular basis. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommend More Legislative Oversight. we recommend requiring UC to submit a budget Given the state’s significant role in funding these report in late fall each year (shortly before the programs and the recent decision to budget start of the budget process). At a minimum, we for Cooperative Extension directly, we believe recommend the report contain: (1) funding by more legislative involvement in these programs is source for the prior, current, and budget year; warranted. Below, we offer three recommendations (2) spending by function and program for the prior, to improve budgeting for these programs and current, and budget year; and (3) a breakdown of enhance legislative oversight. anticipated cost adjustments in the budget year Identify Funding for Experiment Stations in due to salaries, benefits, and other key cost drivers. UC ANR Budget Item. Given the intended nexus To the extent the university or the administration between the Agricultural Experiment Station and wishes to pursue programmatic adjustments (such Cooperative Extension programs in researching as expanding the number of specialists or advisors, and educating the public, we believe directly augmenting a statewide program, or creating a new budgeting for the experiment stations (in addition program), we recommend directing them to provide to Cooperative Extension) is warranted. Under this a description and justification for the proposed approach, the state would have a line item in the change. UC and the administration could follow annual budget for UC’s agricultural and natural the standard “budget change proposal” format resource programs, with separate schedules used by most state agencies when requesting for the experiment stations and Cooperative augmentations. This standard documentation Extension. Such an approach would provide more contains information on the baseline budget, transparency by identifying the amount of state proposed change and its cost, justification for the funding being provided to each of the programs, change, and alternatives considered. allow for more targeted funding depending on Also Require Periodic Reporting on legislative priorities, increase legislative control over Activities and Outcomes. In addition to receiving annual funding adjustments, and make tracking information to assist with annual budget decisions, budget adjustments easier over time. we recommend the Legislature direct UC ANR to Require Annual Budget Documentation. report on the past activities and performance of the To assist the Legislature in budgeting for the Agricultural Experiment Stations and Cooperative experiment stations and Cooperative Extension, Extension programs. We recommend this report, at a minimum, include: (1) a summary of the major www.lao.ca.gov 11 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT research and outreach efforts undertaken and experiment stations and Cooperative Extension. (2) data on program outcomes. Given the diversity Typically, the Legislature provides this type of of activities undertaken by the experiment stations statutory guidance for programs that it categorically and Cooperative Extension, the Legislature likely funds. Providing more guidance allows the state will want to consider which outcome measures are to set its priorities and monitor spending to ensure of greatest interest. For example, the university it is aligned with those priorities. Having statutory could report on new research discoveries as goals is arguably especially salient for UC’s well as provide data on the number and type of agricultural and natural resource programs, given participants engaged in outreach activities. Having their vast scope and many competing priorities. this outcomes-oriented report would provide the Establishing statutory goals, however, could limit Legislature a better basis upon which to assess the existing flexibility afforded to UC to set its program effectiveness and alignment with state own program goals. Allowing UC to set program priorities. This performance report could be goals enables UC experts to be nimble and draw submitted in the fall in tandem with the ANR budget from their expertise to address statewide issues. report or in late winter, if such timing would allow Such flexibility could be valuable were California’s more performance data to be included in the agricultural and natural resource issues to morph report. Depending upon legislative interest and its quickly with the effects of climate change and usefulness in aiding budget decisions, the report other environmental pressures. Upon weighing could be submitted every one, two, or three years. these trade-offs, were the Legislature to decide to Weigh Trade-Offs of Setting Program Goals provide more statutory guidance, we recommend in Statute. Whereas we think the benefits of the crafting a set of clear, overarching state goals for above three recommendations are clear, we also the experiment stations and Cooperative Extension note that the Legislature has the further option of programs while still allowing for responsiveness and providing explicit statutory program goals for the some flexibility at the local level. 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov 13 analysis full gutter AN LAO REPORT LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Jason Constantouros, with research assistance from Christopher Bernedo, and 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. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE