Most of the growth in preschool-age enrollment comes from expanded TK programs, while access for 3-year-olds remains limited due to eligibility and availability constraints.
Participation in early childhood education programs supports children’s development and contributes to improved outcomes into adulthood, particularly for children from households with low incomes. Early childhood education programs also play a critical role in enabling parents and caregivers to work. In California, a mix of publicly funded programs provide preschool-age children with these foundational opportunities. However, in addition to meeting eligibility requirements, access and participation often depend on whether families can overcome barriers to enrollment and whether available options align with their needs and preferences.
This analysis examines enrollment trends across all publicly funded early childhood education programs in California serving 3- and 4-year-old children from 2021-22 to 2022-23, with a focus on understanding how participation has shifted across these age groups.
Program expansions, policy changes, and family preferences, among other factors, have shaped enrollment in recent years. Overall participation of 3- and 4-year-olds increased from 2021-22 to 2023-24, as shown in the table above. However, behind this growth are important differences by age and program type.
4-year-old enrollment grew more slowly than 3-year-old enrollment in most programs. This is especially notable in child care and development programs, where enrollment for 3-year-olds grew by 56% from 2021-22 to 2023-24, possibly reflecting slot expansion in recent years. By contrast, enrollment for 4-year-olds only grew by 35%, with some programs experiencing declines. This slower growth among 4-year-olds may reflect a shift toward Transitional Kindergarten (TK). While growth for 3-year-olds is promising, it still falls short of meeting the need because only 21% of eligible 3-year-olds were served in 2023-24.
Growth in preschool programs was uneven, with TK driving most of the increase. From 2021-22 to 2023-24, total enrollment in preschool programs — including TK, State Preschool, and Head Start — all grew, but most of the increase was due to TK, where 4-year-old enrollment doubled. State Preschool saw modest gains in 3-year-olds, especially in full-day programs, but 4-year-old enrollment declined in part-day settings by about 9%. Head Start enrollment for 4-year-olds dropped by nearly 5,000 children, reflecting the workforce challenges and low-pay for educators. However, the program still served nearly 48,000 preschool-age children in 2023-24, underscoring its critical role in California’s early learning system and the need to pay early educators a fair wage.
These enrollment shifts illustrate how families are making use of available preschool options, often shaped by eligibility requirements, availability, and trade-offs between different program types. The expansion of TK has possibly contributed to slower growth or even declines in 4-year-old enrollment in other programs. At the same time, while increases in enrollment among 3-year-olds are meaningful, they remain below the need, indicating that many families still lack access to available programs.
As California continues to expand access, it is essential for policymakers to understand the distinct role that each program plays in the landscape and ensure that investments support a range of options that reflect the needs of families.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
Californians typically pay more in federal taxes than the state receives in federal spending each year, making California a “donor state.”1All years in this fact sheet represent federal fiscal years (FFYs), which begin every October 1 and end the following September 30. The data presented in this fact sheet differs from the data included in an earlier Budget Center fact sheet — published in February 2025 — for a few reasons. First, this fact sheet analyzes data for nine fiscal years (FFYs 2015 to 2023), whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed these data for only a single fiscal year (FFY 2022). Second, this fact sheet displays federal spending data in two ways — with and without federal COVID funds — whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed spending data only with COVID funds. Finally, the data for FFY 2022 differ across the two fact sheets because the Rockefeller Institute of Government recently revised the FFY 2022 data. Between federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2015 and 2023, federal taxes paid by California residents and businesses exceeded federal spending in every year except 2020, 2021, and 2023.2FFY 2023 is the most recent year for which the Rockefeller Institute of Government’s 50-state analysis is available. In other words, California was a donor state in six out of the nine fiscal years for which data are available.
California likely would have been a donor state in additional years during this period if not for federal COVID funding. Since 2020, federal expenditures have included the substantial — but temporary — support provided to states, businesses, and individuals to address the COVID pandemic. These one-time COVID funds caused federal expenditures in California to jump significantly, which in turn has understated California’s role as a donor state.3In the four years leading up to the start of the pandemic in FFY 2020, annual federal spending in California hovered between $400 billion and $450 billion. That number jumped to over $750 billion in FFY 2020 as the pandemic took hold and federal COVID spending ramped up. Federal spending in California remained above $600 billion as recently as FFY 2023.
Excluding temporary COVID funds from the analysis provides a more accurate picture of the long-term underlying fiscal trends and California’s true position as a donor state. Using this alternative analysis, between FFYs 2015 and 2023, Californians paid more in federal taxes than the state received in federal spending in eight out of these nine years (2020 is the exception). For example, Californians’ federal taxes exceeded federal spending — excluding COVID spending — by $55 billion in 2021, $101 billion in 2022, and $17 billion in 2023.
Why Is California a Donor State?
Why do Californians typically contribute more to the federal treasury than the state gets back in federal funding? The explanation touches on both the spending and revenue sides of the equation.
On the spending side:
States with higher poverty rates, a large population of older adults, major federal facilities (such as military bases), a large volume of federal contracts, and/or a substantial federal employee presence are likely to receive a disproportionate share of federal funds. These factors contribute to relatively higher federal spending in many other states (on a per capita basis) compared to California.
On the revenue side:
States with more wealthy residents and high per capita incomes — like California — account for a disproportionate share of federal tax revenue due to the progressive federal tax system.
H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget
H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.
See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.
With Trump-Era Federal Budget Cuts, the Gap Between California’s Federal Tax Contributions and Federal Spending in the State Will Increase
In July 2025, President Trump signed into law a budget bill (H.R. 1) that will deeply harm Californians by cutting spending for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education in order to help fund massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, and increased immigration enforcement. The spending cuts included in H.R. 1 will disproportionately impact families with low incomes, immigrants, and communities of color, pushing more people into poverty and widening racial and economic inequities across the state.
State policymakers can mitigate the harm of H.R. 1., however, the massive federal funding cuts are too large to be entirely backfilled with state dollars. As a result, essential services like Medi-Cal health coverage and CalFresh food assistance are in jeopardy as state leaders assess how to address the impact of harmful federal reductions.
Moreover, as the provisions of H.R. 1 are implemented through 2028, the gap between what Californians pay in federal taxes and federal spending in the state will grow larger.
This is because Californians will continue to disproportionately contribute to federal revenues whereas California will get back even less of those dollars as deep cuts to health care, food assistance, and other vital services take effect.
Federal Tax Dollars Should Be Used to Strengthen Essential Services
California contributes much to the nation thanks to the creativity, vitality, and hard work of the nearly 40 million people of diverse backgrounds who call the Golden State their home.
Federal tax dollars — including Californians’ very generous contributions to the federal treasury — should be used to strengthen vital public services and help all people make ends meet, rather than helping corporations and the wealthy avoid paying their fair share of federal taxes.
Update: This fact sheet was revised in August 2025 to include newly released federal tax and spending data from the Rockefeller Institute of Government (federal fiscal years 2015–2023), with revised figures and updated charts.
Want to Better Understand the State Budget?
The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.
Explore tools, videos, and expert insights designed to strengthen your advocacy and guide informed decision-making.
All years in this fact sheet represent federal fiscal years (FFYs), which begin every October 1 and end the following September 30. The data presented in this fact sheet differs from the data included in an earlier Budget Center fact sheet — published in February 2025 — for a few reasons. First, this fact sheet analyzes data for nine fiscal years (FFYs 2015 to 2023), whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed these data for only a single fiscal year (FFY 2022). Second, this fact sheet displays federal spending data in two ways — with and without federal COVID funds — whereas the earlier fact sheet displayed spending data only with COVID funds. Finally, the data for FFY 2022 differ across the two fact sheets because the Rockefeller Institute of Government recently revised the FFY 2022 data.
In the four years leading up to the start of the pandemic in FFY 2020, annual federal spending in California hovered between $400 billion and $450 billion. That number jumped to over $750 billion in FFY 2020 as the pandemic took hold and federal COVID spending ramped up. Federal spending in California remained above $600 billion as recently as FFY 2023.
You may also be interested in the following resources:
California policymakers should ensure that profitable corporations pay their fair share in state corporate taxes — which represent a tiny share of their expenses — to support the public services that Californians need. This is especially urgent to help mitigate the harms of the harmful federal cuts to health care, food assistance, and other basic needs programs.
State leaders should end the state’s most costly corporate tax break — the water’s edge loophole, which allows corporations to avoid around $3 billion in California taxes each year and deprives the state of needed resources to address the most pressing concerns facing Californians.
As state leaders look to blunt the harm of the federal budget on Californians with low incomes and the state’s finances, it’s clear that California’s corporate tax structure is in need of repair. While large, profitable corporations benefit from new federal tax breaks, California policymakers must ensure these businesses pay their fair share in state taxes. There is no one-size-fits-all solution: different options can all complement each other. For example, limiting corporate tax credit usage will raise revenues by itself but will also prevent erosion of the revenue potential from ending the water’s edge loophole.
MORE IN THIS SERIES
To learn more about the water’s edge election, net operating losses, tax credits, corporate tax rates, and options for common-sense reform, see the other fact sheets in this series:
The Problem: Multinational Corporations Avoid Billions in State Taxes by Shifting US Profits Offshore
Large corporations that have affiliated companies outside of the US can use a variety of mechanisms to artificially shift hundreds of billions in US profits to foreign jurisdictions with low tax rates — known as tax havens — to reduce their federal and state taxes. In fact, corporations report to federal tax authorities that their profits in some well-known tax havens are multiple times larger than the entire economies of these places, indicating that most if not all of those profits are only there on paper.
As one example of how a corporation might accomplish this, a US corporation can transfer ownership of intellectual property like patents or trademarks to a foreign affiliate and pay the affiliate for the right to use them, effectively moving income off the books of the US corporation while keeping it within the larger corporate group. This is a tactic that industries such as tech and pharmaceuticals can easily employ, but corporations across the board have options to engage in offshore profit shifting and tax avoidance.
Corporations Can Greatly Reduce Profits Subject to Taxation — and Their Taxes — by Shifting Profits Abroad and Using the Water’s Edge Election
CORPORATE GROUP TOTAL PROFITS
If the example corporation above uses the default Worldwide Combined Reporting method, all worldwide profits are included: $5B + $500M + $200M + $4B + $2B = $11.7 Billion.
If the corporation chooses to use Water’s Edge Election, only domestic profits are included (yellow oval): $5B + $500M + $200M = $5.7 Billion.
Note: This is a simplified example.
California’s “water’s edge election” allows corporations to choose whether or not to include the profits of their foreign affiliates when they report their total profits that can be divided up among, or “apportioned” to, the states where they are subject to tax.1Additionally, while some groups of related corporations may elect to file a group tax return in California, each corporation may file separate returns but are still required to combine profits at the corporate group level first, before apportioning profits between taxing jurisdictions and individual corporate entities.Generally, profits are apportioned to states by multiplying the total profits by the “sales factor”, which is determined by dividing the corporation’s sales into the state by its total sales. For filers electing the water’s edge method, the denominator is only domestic sales.
The water’s edge election creates several issues:
Smaller, domestic businesses likely pay higher shares of their income in taxes than large multinational corporations because they are unable to shift profits overseas.
Giving corporations the option of two filing methods means they will always choose the one that lowers their tax bill. For corporations with significant offshore profits, the water’s edge method will likely result in lower taxes. If corporations have domestic profits and foreign losses, using the “worldwide combined reporting” method — where all worldwide profits and losses are combined — would result in a lower tax bill.
Allowing corporations to ignore foreign profits can encourage them to shift profits to foreign tax havens and avoid state taxes by using the water’s edge election.
Maintaining the water’s edge election will cost the state an estimated $3.1 billion in 2024-25, increasing to $3.5 billion by 2026-27, according to the Department of Finance.
The Solution: Close the Water’s Edge Loophole and Require Worldwide Combined Reporting
Requiring large multinational corporations to use the worldwide combined reporting method would eliminate the state tax benefit of shifting profits abroad and close this loophole, resulting in additional revenue for California. Under this method, corporations are required to include the income of all their domestic and foreign affiliates in their total profits before determining what share is taxable by each state. This is already the default tax filing method for corporations subject to tax in California that don’t elect the water’s edge method, so some corporations currently use this method when it is beneficial for them.
In tandem with requiring worldwide combined reporting, policymakers could take steps to prevent corporations from underreporting their sales into California, driving down the “sales factor” used to determine the share of their profits that can be taxed in California, and ultimately reducing their state taxes. For example, policymakers can clarify state law to ensure corporations report the final destination of their sales — not the location of intermediaries — for the purpose of the sales factor, and require more robust reporting on the locations of sales to allow tax authorities to better identify cases when a corporation may be underreporting. This is a reform that should generate additional revenue on its own, but would also help prevent the erosion of revenues that could be gained from requiring worldwide combined reporting, as requiring corporations to report their global profits may lead them to find other ways to reduce their California tax bill, like underreporting sales into the state.
Ending the water’s edge loophole for large corporations and requiring worldwide combined reporting is a common-sense reform to ensure corporations contribute a fair share of their profits in California taxes to support the state services and infrastructure that allow companies, their workers, and their consumers to thrive.
Want to Better Understand the State Budget?
The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.
Explore tools, videos, and expert insights designed to strengthen your advocacy and guide informed decision-making.
Additionally, while some groups of related corporations may elect to file a group tax return in California, each corporation may file separate returns but are still required to combine profits at the corporate group level first, before apportioning profits between taxing jurisdictions and individual corporate entities.
You may also be interested in the following resources:
California policymakers should ensure that profitable corporations pay their fair share in state corporate taxes — which represent a tiny share of their expenses — to support public services and help shield Californians from the harms of federal cuts to health care, food assistance, and other basic needs programs.
MORE IN THIS SERIES
To learn more about the water’s edge election, net operating losses, tax credits, corporate tax rates, and options for common-sense reform, see the other fact sheets in this series:
How do large, profitable corporations currently get away with paying so little in California taxes?
California’s tax code contains several provisions, including the water’s edge election, net operating loss (NOL) deductions, and tax credits like the research and development credit, that corporations can take advantage of to reduce their state taxes. While actual corporate tax calculations can be exceedingly complicated, the following hypothetical — and very simplified — example demonstrates the ways that corporations operating across multiple states and countries can reduce the taxes they owe to California.
State leaders can limit the opportunities corporations have to wipe out their tax bill in years when they are profitable by reforming these elements of the corporate tax system that enable them to do this.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
Federal dollars support a wide array of public services and systems that touch the lives of all Californians — from health care and food assistance to child care and public schools. Some of these services face unprecedented cuts under the Republican-passed budget bill that President Trump signed in July. These federal reductions target vital services that help the most vulnerable Californians, including immigrant communities, Californians with disabilities, low-income families with young children, older adults living on fixed incomes, and many more.
How Federal Funds Support California’s State Budget and Essential Services
A significant share of federal funding for California flows through the state budget. The enacted state budget for 2025-26 includes almost $175 billion in federal funds. This is over one-third (35.2%) of the total state budget.
Almost 4 in 5 federal dollars that are projected to flow through California’s state budget in 2025-26 — $136.6 billion — support vital health and human services (HHS) for millions of Californians, including children, seniors, and families with low incomes.
The largest share of federal funding for HHS programs — $119.3 billion — is budgeted through the Department of Health Care Services for Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program). Medi-Cal provides health care services to nearly 15 million Californians with low incomes, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities. More than half of Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal are Latinx.
The second-largest share of federal funding for HHS programs — $11.6 billion — goes to the Department of Social Services. These funds support child welfare services, foster care, the CalWORKs program, and other critical services that assist low-income and vulnerable Californians.
The remaining federal funds that are projected to flow through the state budget in 2025-26 — $38.0 billion — support a broad range of public services and systems. This includes:
$8.7 billion for labor and workforce development programs, primarily for unemployment insurance benefits for jobless Californians;
$8.1 billion for K-12 education;
$7.3 billion for higher education (the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California);
$6.8 billion for transportation, primarily to improve state and local transportation infrastructure; and
$7.0 billion for additional public services and systems, including environmental protection, the state court system, and state corrections.
H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget
H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.
See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.
Federal Budget Cuts Largely Target Health Care and Food Assistance, Threatening Californians’ Health and Financial Security
On July 4, President Trump signed into law a budget bill that strips away health care and food assistance from tens of millions of Americans, while doubling down on costly tax cuts that mainly benefit corporations and the wealthy.
The Republican-passed bill sets in motion massive reductions to federal funding for Medicaid health coverage (Medi-Cal in California) and SNAP food assistance (CalFresh in California) — cuts that will destabilize the state budget and harm millions of Californians, including children, older adults, and people with disabilities.
The budget bill was opposed by every Democrat and backed by every Republican in California’s congressional delegation.
President Trump’s budget bill cuts more than $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. This includes creating bureaucratic barriers to coverage like burdensome and ineffective work requirements, taking away health care from many immigrants, and making other changes that will diminish federal support for Medicaid over the next few years. Overall, these changes will:
Reduce federal funding for Medi-Cal over the next several years. This funding loss is especially concerning given that federal support for Medi-Cal makes up more than two-thirds (68.4%) of all federal funds that flow through California’s state budget.
Mitigating the Impact of Federal Budget Cuts Requires Bold State Action
The impacts of these harmful federal funding cuts and policy changes will be felt across California for years to come. Vulnerable Californians, including those with low incomes, older adults, people with disabilities, and communities of color, will face the greatest harm to their well-being as a result.
Mitigating these impacts will require bold state action. This should include state tax policy changes to raise the revenue needed to prevent the erosion of essential public services and protect Californians from deepening hardship.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
key takeaway
Without renewed support for the Emergency Housing Voucher program, thousands of Californians could lose stable housing. Policymakers have the power and responsibility to stop harmful cuts and protect everyone’s fundamental right to a stable home.
The federal Emergency Housing Voucher (EHV) program currently helps over 15,000 Californians afford a safe place to live in their community. Federal funding will begin to run out in parts of the state by the end of the year if Congress doesn’t act. And with California leaders still failing to fill the gap, thousands of Californians are at risk of losing their homes.
EHV was created during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, meant to provide immediate housing to people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and survivors of domestic violence in crisis. The federal funding for the program had until 2030 to be fully expended. However, with rents rising far faster than incomes, especially for low-wage workers, funding is being depleted faster than expected.
The program has been a lifeline for thousands in California and nationwide, offering rapid access to stable housing for some of the state’s most vulnerable residents. But now, as federal funding dries up, families and individuals are beginning to receive notices that their housing vouchers will expire, forcing them into impossible choices: return to homelessness, leave their communities, or forgo other basic needs to keep a roof over their heads.
Without renewed funding, Californians who are currently safely housed will be pushed back onto the streets to face the cruel and costly reality of homelessness once again. These cuts to essential housing supports come at a time when people living with disabilities and survivors of domestic violence are already facing multiple federal and state cuts to vital funding that supports their health and safety.
H.R. 1 and the Federal Budget
H.R. 1, the harmful Republican mega bill passed in July 2025, will deeply harm Californians by cutting funding for essential programs like health care, food assistance, and education.
See how California leaders can respond and protect vital supports.
On average, a standard housing choice voucher covers roughly $1,550 per month in California. This does not account for the full rent but does cover a critical share, with recipients still typically paying 30% of their income. Losing this support means choosing between rent, food, child care, transportation, or education.
For example, the following table quantifies the trade-offs that a single mom with a 3-year old and a 6-year old who live in San Bernardino County would have to face if they lose their housing voucher. The example uses the average cost per housing unit for the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino for simplicity.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Dashboard
Utilities:
Source: Budget Center analysis of US Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey
Note: Data reflect the median cost of electricity and gas in San Bernardino County in 2023. Data have been adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All Items in the Los Angeles metropolitan area.
Cellular Phone Service:
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021-2022 Consumer Expenditure Survey
Note: Data reflect the average cost of cellular phone service for “consumer units” in California with the lowest 20% of income before taxes. Data have been adjusted to reflect 2025 dollars using the “Wireless telephone services in the U.S.” Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers.
Groceries:
Source: US Department of Agriculture, USDA Food Plans: Monthly Cost of Food Report for Low, Moderate, and Liberal Food Plans for January 2025
Note: Data reflect the monthly low-cost plan for a three-year-old, six-year-old, and a woman between the ages of 19 and 50.
Transportation:
Source: MIT Living Wage Calculator
Note: Reflects transportation costs for a household with one adult and two children.
Child Care:
Note: The cost of child care for a preschool-age and school-age child is calculated using the 2021 Regional Market Rate Survey adjusted for inflation using the “Tuition, other school fees, and childcare” Consumer Price Index for the Los Angeles metro area.
Source: Budget Center analysis of data from the California Department of Social Services
Californians who have already faced the devastating impact of homelessness or domestic violence should not have their homes threatened to help millionaires and large corporations receive another round of tax cuts. The threat to not renew EHV funding is part of a broader federal push to cut and defund critical housing and safety net programs to finance tax breaks for the wealthy. As federal leaders work to destroy programs like EHV that help keep people housed, state leaders must secure the revenues needed to keep their constituents housed and stop deeper potential cuts to other vital housing programs.
Forcing Californians out of their homes is not inevitable — just as ending homelessness is possible. Policymakers have the power and responsibility to stop harmful cuts and protect everyone’s fundamental right to a stable home.
Kristin Schumacher contributed to this publication.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
key takeaway
Cuts to Medi-Cal, IHSS, and other essential programs threaten the health, independence, and well-being of Californians with disabilities.
Programs like Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program), In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS), and regional center programs are vital lifelines for people with disabilities in California. They provide essential health care, support, and community-based services that help people live safely and independently in their communities. Reliable funding for these programs ensures that people with disabilities can access the health care and resources they need to be healthy and thrive.
About 2 in 5 Californians with a disability (43%) received vital health care coverage through Medi-Cal in 2023, according to an analysis of American Community Survey data. This 43% is significantly higher than the 25% of Californians without a disability that had Medi-Cal health care coverage.1The difference in proportions between people with a disability and people without a disability with Medi-Cal coverage is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. Because people with disabilities are more likely to depend on Medi-Cal compared to the general population, any cuts to this funding would disproportionately harm this community.
Other supports, like IHSS and regional center services, are essential for helping people with disabilities live safely and independently in their communities. Almost 2 in 3 IHSS recipients in California were blind or disabled in April 2025 (about 541,700 people), highlighting the importance of this program in keeping people in their homes and avoiding institutional care. Regional centers provide assessments, case management, and connections to services and community resources, supporting people with developmental disabilities to thrive in their daily lives.
What Are in-home supportive services?
The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program provides in-home assistance to seniors, individuals who are blind, and people with disabilities who qualify. Examples of IHSS include personal care (e.g., bathing, dressing, and grooming) and help with meal preparation. By providing this care, IHSS allows participants to continue living safely and independently in their own homes instead of moving to out-of-home facilities.
Whether through Republican-led proposals in Congress or in the governor’s revised state budget proposal, cuts to Medi-Cal, IHSS, and other supports threaten the health and well-being of people with disabilities. Even if some programs, like regional centers, aren’t directly cut, funding shifts and other pressures can destabilize the broader system of support.
Instead of scaling back these essential services, policymakers should protect and strengthen them to ensure that all Californians, including those with disabilities, have access to the services and supports they need to be healthy and thrive.
Hannah Orbach-Mandel contributed to this factsheet.
The difference in proportions between people with a disability and people without a disability with Medi-Cal coverage is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
You may also be interested in the following resources:
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
California’s Constitution establishes rules for a wide range of legislative actions, from passing the state budget to increasing taxes to placing constitutional amendments on the ballot.
Some actions need only a simple majority vote of each house of the Legislature — 41 votes in the 80-member Assembly and 21 votes in the 40-member state Senate.
Other actions require a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature — 54 votes in the Assembly and 27 votes in the Senate.
Most legislative actions require the governor’s signature, and some need voter approval.
This table summarizes the requirements for approving key legislative actions in California.
Want to Better Understand the State Budget?
The Budget Center’s essential resources for understanding and navigating the California state budget — all in one place.
Explore tools, videos, and expert insights designed to strengthen your advocacy and guide informed decision-making.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us
Please check your email to confirm your signup.
This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. The California Budget & Policy Center does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise disclose personal information. By using our website you agree to our Privacy Policy.
