Building a just and equitable California for every person no matter their race, ethnicity, gender, age, or zip code requires investments to create health, housing, economic, and educational opportunities. The foundation for these investments is the state budget, through which policymakers can commit the funding needed to build a California where everyone can be healthy and thrive. But sustaining and expanding the state’s investments in individuals and communities becomes more challenging when revenues fall short of projections and lead to a state budget shortfall — as is the case this year.
This Q&A explains why California faces a budget problem, highlights the challenges with estimating revenues this year, outlines state leaders’ options for addressing the budget gap — including using reserves — and describes how advocates can advance their policy priorities and lay the groundwork for building a more equitable California even in a tough budget year.
Why is California facing a budget problem this year?
While California experienced extremely strong revenue growth in recent years, state forecasters are now estimating that revenues will come in significantly below expectations for the three-year “budget window” ending in fiscal year 2023-24. Specifically, the governor’s budget proposal assumes that revenues over this budget window will be $29.5 billion lower than estimated in the 2022 Budget Act, before accounting for required transfers into the state’s rainy day fund.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has projected a larger shortfall, noting that the governor’s revenue estimate is $13.6 billion higherthan the LAO’s estimate. Revenues are expected to fall short primarily due to lower current-year personal income tax withholding and estimated payments, a weaker stock market, and the risk of an economic slowdown resulting from high inflation and interest rate hikes intended to combat inflation.
Looking at the current fiscal year (2022-23), actual General Fund tax collections for the first eight months are around $4.7 billion lower than estimated in the governor’s January budget proposal.
Under these lower revenue estimates, the state would not have enough resources to support currently authorized services. The governor’s proposed spending plan assumes the state will face a $22.5 billion budget shortfall, or deficit, without taking actions to balance the budget. Because the state Constitution requires the budget to be balanced, the governor proposes a combination of solutions to address the budget shortfall, including delays or reductions in previously planned spending, and cost shifts, but not the use of the state’s substantial reserves.
Could state revenues come in higher — or lower — than current projections?
The estimated budget shortfall is just that — an estimate. In May, the governor’s Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office will release updated projections of the size of the budget gap. These new numbers will take into account the most recent information available on the economy, spending, revenues, and other factors.
The governor’s updated estimates will be unveiled in his revised budget (the “May Revision”), which must be released by May 14. The May Revision will set the stage for negotiations between the governor and legislative leaders in June over the key outlines of the 2023-24 budget package.
This year, however, there will be significant uncertainty regarding the May revenue estimates. The governor has extended income tax payment deadlines for individuals and businesses in counties that were affected by the storms that battered much of the state this winter. The filing deadline for personal income taxes — the state’s largest revenue source — as well as the quarterly estimated tax payment deadlines for individuals and businesses have been pushed to October 16 this year for filers in counties that were declared as disaster areas.
The counties where the tax-filing extension applies account for the vast majority of the state’s population. Moreover, January, April, and June are among the most important tax collection months. With a large share of tax revenue expected to arrive as late as October, the revenue forecast underlying the 2023-24 budget will be highly uncertain and balancing the budget will be much more difficult for policymakers.
What options do policymakers have to balance the state budget?
Policymakers have several tools to close the budget shortfall in a way that minimizes the impact on public services — particularly those that reduce poverty and help Californians with low incomes make ends meet. One option is to use the state’s General Fund reserves to address a budget shortfall. In fact, the state has built up substantial reserves precisely to help support critical services when revenues fall short.
State leaders especially should use reserve funds to help Californians meet basic needs like food, health care, housing, and child care. However, reserves should be used prudently. Reserve funds may be needed over multiple fiscal years, particularly if the economy slides into a recession and revenues decline over an extended period. (See below for more on the state’s General Fund reserves and how they may be used.)
Policymakers also could shift costs from the General Fund to state special funds that have the capacity to support additional services. For example, some of the state’s 500+ special funds may have large balances that aren’t immediately needed. The state could borrow these excess revenues and use them to temporarily support services typically paid for with General Fund dollars.
Any money borrowed from special funds would later be repaid with interest when General Fund revenues rebound. Shifting costs across funds is a reasonable budgeting practice. This approach can help to close a state budget gap in a way that minimizes the need for cuts to critical public services without compromising the state’s fiscal health.
Another option for balancing the budget while protecting core services is to raise revenues from corporations and the wealthy, the beneficiaries of windfall gains and profits in recent years. Corporations contribute a smaller share of their profits toward state taxes than they did a generation ago, partly due to tax cuts approved by state policymakers. More broadly, the state loses around $70 billion each year to corporate and individual tax breaks, many of which largely benefit profitable corporations and high-income households. These include wasteful tax breaks like the film tax credit.
Carefully targeted tax increases are a compelling option for closing a budget shortfall. Boosting the corporate tax rate, for example, would only affect businesses that report profits. Moreover, raising taxes on higher-income households would minimize the impact on the economy because the wealthy are more likely to reduce their savings rather than their spending in response to a tax increase.
Policymakers also can delay or reduce spending to help close a budget gap. Delaying an expenditure moves it to a later period when revenues may be more robust. In contrast, a reduction eliminates a previously approved expenditure. Spending reductions should be used with caution. In particular, any cuts should avoid eroding services that help families and individuals make ends meet and support their health — things like cash aid, food assistance, and child care. Instead, policymakers should eliminate ineffective expenditures, such as poorly targeted tax breaks as well as the billions of dollars that annually fund the state’s bloated, costly, and inequitable prison system.
How big are the state’s budget reserves, and when can those funds be used?
California policymakers’ prudent decisions to set aside funds for a rainy day mean the state is well prepared to address a potential budget shortfall. At the end of February 2023, California held a total of $37.2 billion in four state budget reserves:
Budget Stabilization Account (BSA)
Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA)
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU)
Safety Net Reserve
California’s Constitution and state law govern when funds may be withdrawn from these reserves, the amount that can be withdrawn, and how funds may be used. For example, the state Constitution only allows withdrawals from the BSA and PSSSA if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature passes a bill, by majority vote, that approves the withdrawal. In contrast, state law allows the Legislature to withdraw funds from the Safety Net Reserve or the SFEU at any time by majority vote.
All of the funds in the PSSSA, SFEU, and Safety Net Reserve may be withdrawn in one year. However, a withdrawal from the BSA is limited to the lower of the amount needed to address the budget emergency or 50% of the BSA balance, unless funds had been withdrawn in the previous fiscal year in which case all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be accessed.
The PSSSA is the only reserve with strict limits on the use of its funds, which must be provided to support K-12 schools and community colleges. On the other hand, the Legislature may use funds from the BSA and the SFEU for any purpose. In addition, while Safety Net Reserve funds are intended to support CalWORKs and Medi-Cal benefits and services during an economic downturn, the Legislature may allocate these funds for other purposes if the governor signs a bill to do so.
What should advocates keep in mind when advancing their policy priorities this year?
Advocating for policies and the funding to support them is clearly more challenging when the state faces a budget shortfall, like it does this year. In particular, proposals that call for new spending will face greater scrutiny — and higher hurdles — compared to years when state revenues are stronger.
One option for advocates in a tough budget year is to focus on protecting recent policy gains and funding commitments. These include investments in child care, housing, health care, assistance for older adults and people with disabilities, and many other critical services — any of which could be at risk if the budget gap grows. State leaders also have prioritized several policies for implementation in 2024-25 — if revenues are sufficient to support them. These policies include boosting CalWORKs grants and cutting red tape in the Medi-Cal program so that young kids can be continuously enrolled in health coverage. These pending policies could be threatened if revenues further weaken over the coming months.
Furthermore, advocates can continue to make the case for new state investments to help Californians be healthy and thrive. Advocates should educate state leaders about Californians’ ongoing needs, highlight policy solutions, and seek allies to help advance their proposals — using both the policy bill process and the budget process. These actions can lay the groundwork for policy wins and expanded funding when revenues rebound.
Faster progress also is possible. For example, state leaders may be open to adopting an ambitious policy change, but may also delay implementation until funding is provided in a future budget. This approach keeps the issue on the state’s “front burner” and puts advocates in a good position to argue for the needed resources in a future state budget cycle.
Finally, advocates should keep in mind that the major uncertainty surrounding revenue estimates this year (discussed above) means that the June budget package will likely be much more unsettled than usual. And because tax-filing deadlines have been pushed to October for most Californians, the revenue situation is unlikely to be much clearer by August when state leaders typically make significant revisions to the budget.
It’s not clear how the protracted revenue uncertainty may impact late-breaking budget proposals this year, but unexpected opportunities could emerge — so advocates should be prepared, as always, to advance their priorities through the budget process during the summer.
Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA)
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU)
Safety Net Reserve
California’s Budget Reserves
California’s Constitution and state law govern when funds may be withdrawn from these reserves, the amount that can be withdrawn, and how funds may be used.
Established in the state Constitution: Budget Stabilization Account, Public School System Stabilization Account
Established in state law: Safety Net Reserve, Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties
Budget Stabilization Account (BSA)
Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA)
Safety Net Reserve
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU)
Is the state required to make an annual deposit?
No However, a deposit is required under a restricted set of circumstances.1For example, these circumstances include requirements that deposits only occur when capital gains tax revenues exceed a specific level of total General Fund proceeds of taxes and when growth in the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is relatively strong.
Can a required deposit be reduced or suspended — and by who?
Yes A required deposit can be reduced or suspended if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature approves the reduction or suspension by a majority vote.
Yes A required deposit can be reduced or suspended if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature approves the reduction or suspension by a majority vote.
When can funds be withdrawn?
Funds may be withdrawn if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature passes a bill, by majority vote, to withdraw funds.2 The withdrawal rules governing the BSA may not apply to some of the funds in the BSA. Specifically, of the $23.3 billion in the account as of December 31, 2022, $1.8 billion was not deposited in accordance with the current constitutional rules. The Legislative Analyst’s Office suggests that the Legislature may be able to appropriate this $1.8 billion “optional” balance without a declaration of a budget emergency by the governor. In contrast, under this interpretation, the various withdrawal rules would apply to the remaining BSA balance. Separate and apart from this issue, funds must be withdrawn from the BSA — without the need for a declaration of a budget emergency — when updated revenue estimates indicate that a prior-year deposit was greater than required.
Funds may be withdrawn if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature passes a bill, by majority vote, to withdraw funds.3Funds must be withdrawn from the PSSSA — without the need for a declaration of a budget emergency — when the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is less than the prior year’s funding level, adjusted for changes in student attendance and the cost of living, or when updated revenue estimates indicate that a prior-year deposit was greater than required.
The Legislature may withdraw the funds at any time by majority vote.
The Legislature may withdraw the funds at any time by majority vote.4Additionally, the Department of Finance may withdraw funds from the SFEU without legislative approval to cover the cost of state disaster response efforts upon an emergency proclamation by the governor.
Is there a limit on the amount of funds that can be withdrawn?
Yes The amount that can be withdrawn is limited to the lower of 1) the amount needed to address the budget emergency or 2) half of the funds in the BSA, unless funds had been withdrawn in the previous fiscal year, in which case all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be withdrawn.
No5However, in any year when funds must be withdrawn from the PSSSA because the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is less than the prior year’s funding level — adjusted for changes in student attendance and the cost of living — the required withdrawal is limited to the amount of that shortfall.
How can the funds be used by the state?
Funds may be used for any purpose.
Funds must be used to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
Funds are intended to maintain existing CalWORKs and Medi-Cal benefits and services during an economic downturn, but may be used for any purpose if the Legislature so chooses.
For example, these circumstances include requirements that deposits only occur when capital gains tax revenues exceed a specific level of total General Fund proceeds of taxes and when growth in the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is relatively strong.
The withdrawal rules governing the BSA may not apply to some of the funds in the BSA. Specifically, of the $23.3 billion in the account as of December 31, 2022, $1.8 billion was not deposited in accordance with the current constitutional rules. The Legislative Analyst’s Office suggests that the Legislature may be able to appropriate this $1.8 billion “optional” balance without a declaration of a budget emergency by the governor. In contrast, under this interpretation, the various withdrawal rules would apply to the remaining BSA balance. Separate and apart from this issue, funds must be withdrawn from the BSA — without the need for a declaration of a budget emergency — when updated revenue estimates indicate that a prior-year deposit was greater than required.
Funds must be withdrawn from the PSSSA — without the need for a declaration of a budget emergency — when the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is less than the prior year’s funding level, adjusted for changes in student attendance and the cost of living, or when updated revenue estimates indicate that a prior-year deposit was greater than required.
Additionally, the Department of Finance may withdraw funds from the SFEU without legislative approval to cover the cost of state disaster response efforts upon an emergency proclamation by the governor.
However, in any year when funds must be withdrawn from the PSSSA because the state’s minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges is less than the prior year’s funding level — adjusted for changes in student attendance and the cost of living — the required withdrawal is limited to the amount of that shortfall.
You may also be interested in the following resources:
Governor Gavin Newsom released his proposed 2023-24 California state budget on January 10, projecting a $22.5 billion shortfall that the administration would solve through a series of trigger cuts, delays or deferrals of spending authorized in earlier years, and withdrawals or reductions of planned one-time spending. The $223.6 billion spending plan would protect many ongoing investments made in prior years, but would not draw down state reserves, which are projected to total $35.6 billion.
Slowing revenue due to economic conditions presents state leaders with a paradox for the 2023-24 state budget — closing the projected budget shortfall and preparing for the potential of larger shortfalls, while protecting and continuing to invest in essential public supports for the millions of Californians whose well-being is most vulnerable to deteriorating economic conditions. As Californians continue to experience the rising costs of basic needs like food and housing, and Congress eliminates critical programs like emergency food assistance, our state’s leaders face increasing demands for essential services to meet the needs of our communities. This is especially important for Black, Latinx, and other Californians of color, and Californians with low incomes who repeatedly bear the brunt of economic downturns, rising cost of living, and austerity policies.
The governor’s budget proposal would mostly protect and maintain progress made in the current and prior budget years to help improve economic security and opportunities for Californians with low incomes, including policy advances in health care and behavioral health, safety net and cash assistance programs, homelessness and housing, and cradle-to-career education.
However, state leaders have the tools and resources, such as using a portion of reserves and diverting spending that supports the wealthy and corporations, to further protect essential services and build upon this progress. In preparing for multiple scenarios, the Legislature and administration should reevaluate costly tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, like the governor’s proposed extension of the film tax credit, and instead protect core services and make strategic investments in economic support to ensure all Californians are able to secure the resources they need to thrive.
Lastly, the governor’s proposal projects that the state will not exceed the constitutional spending limit — or Gann Limit. State leaders will eventually have to ask voters to reform the limit, particularly when economic conditions improve again, or it will constrain our state’s ability to invest in a vibrant and more equitable economic future.
This First Look report outlines key pieces of the 2023-24 California budget proposal, and explores how the governor prioritized spending and determined cuts amid the first budget shortfall of his tenure.
what is the governor’s proposed budget?
The budget proposal provides a detailed overview of the governor’s proposed expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, estimated expenditures for the current fiscal year, and actual expenditures for the prior fiscal year. The proposed budget is released — along with the governor’s budget summary — on or before January 10.
Governor’s Budget Expects Slowing but Continued Economic Growth
The administration expects job and wage growth to continue in 2023 and is not projecting a recession. However, growth is projected to slow relative to the past year. The number of nonfarm jobs in California is forecast to increase by 1.6% in 2023 and 0.5% in 2024, down from 6.2% in 2022. In addition, the state’s unemployment rate is expected to rise to 4.5% in 2023 and 5.1% in 2024, up from 4.4% last year. Average wages are expected to increase by 3.4% in 2023 and 3.0% in 2024, up from 0.5% in 2022. However, after accounting for inflation, average wages are expected to decline by 1.9% in 2023 and 0.6% in 2024, following a 7.2% decline last year. Finally, the budget forecasts that the recent high rate of inflation in the state will begin to subside this year, with California CPI projected to rise by 5.3% in 2023 and 3.6% in 2024, down from 7.7% last year. Nevertheless, these projected inflation rates remain above typical annual inflation rates, which averaged around 2% in the decade leading up to the pandemic.
Economic forecasting is always subject to some uncertainty, and the administration highlights several risks to the economic outlook, including additional interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve which could push the nation into a recession. On the other hand, factors that could lead to stronger economic growth than projected include “faster-than-expected easing of inflation and resolution of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.”
Proposed Budget Reflects Significant Downgrade of Revenue Estimates
After two years of strong state revenue growth, the administration is now projecting that General Fund revenues for the three-year budget window ending with the 2023-24 fiscal year will be $29.5 billion lower than estimated in the 2022 Budget Act, before accounting for transfers into the state’s rainy day fund. This is notably lower than the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s previous estimate of a $41 billion revenue shortfall for the same period.
The downgraded revenue estimate largely reflects a major decline in the personal income tax revenue forecast, consistent with slowing economic growth and a weaker stock market — in part resulting from multiple actions by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates in an attempt to moderate inflation. However, the revenue forecast does not anticipate that the economy falls into a recession, in which case the administration estimates that revenue losses could be anywhere from $20 billion to $60 billion greater, depending on the severity of the recession.
Relative to the 2022 Budget Act projections, the governor’s budget proposal anticipates revenues to be down across all of the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenue sources for the three-year budget window by:
$25.4 billion for the personal income tax,
$3.8 billion for the corporation tax, and
$2.5 billion for the sales and use tax.
Additionally, the administration now expects federal reimbursements for emergency costs related to wildfires and COVID-19 to be $6.9 billion lower than expected at the enactment of last year’s budget.
The governor’s budget also includes several proposed tax policy changes, including:
A tax exemption for forgiven student loan debt under President Biden’s forgiveness plan — if litigation surrounding the plan is resolved. The proposed budget does not include an estimate of the revenue effect of this proposal.
An effort to reduce tax avoidance by wealthy Californians taking advantage of certain trust arrangements, expected to modestly raise revenues by $30 million in 2023-24 and $17 million annually ongoing.
A five-year extension of the state’s film and television tax credit beginning in 2025-26 after the current authorization expires. The total allocation of tax credits would continue to be capped at $330 million annually, but the governor proposes making the credits refundable, meaning production companies that owe less in state taxes than the credit they are allocated could receive part of the difference as a refund over several years. Although this proposal would not go into effect until 2025-26, at a time when the state’s revenue outlook is uncertain, it would be prudent for the state to refrain from committing future state resources to a tax credit program with little evidence to support its economic benefit to the state. Further, it is unnecessary to make the credit refundable; businesses that have low tax liabilities are not necessarily small or struggling businesses, so this could be a giveaway to profitable corporations.
An expansion of the existing New Employment Credit, which is intended to encourage businesses to hire certain categories of disadvantaged workers. The credits are currently only available to businesses in high-poverty and high-unemployment areas, and the credit has a low take-up rate. The governor proposes to eliminate the geographic restrictions for businesses engaged in semiconductor manufacturing and research and development. Even if this change does increase uptake of the credit, it should not impact overall state revenues, as the annual combined cost of this credit and two other business tax incentive programs is currently capped.
Governor’s Proposal Does Not Use State’s Reserves to Close Budget Shortfall
California has a number of state reserve accounts that set aside funds intended to be used for a “rainy day,” when economic conditions worsen and state revenues decline. Some reserves are established in the state’s Constitution to require deposits and restrict withdrawals, and some are at the discretion of state policymakers.
California voters approved Proposition 2 in November 2014, amending the California Constitution to revise the rules for the state’s Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), commonly referred to as the rainy day fund. Prop. 2 requires an annual set-aside equal to 1.5% of estimated General Fund revenues. An additional set-aside is required when capital gains revenues in a given year exceed 8% of General Fund tax revenues. For 15 years — from 2015-16 to 2029-30 — half of these funds must be deposited into the rainy day fund and the other half is to be used to reduce certain state liabilities (also known as “budgetary debt”). Prop. 2 also established a new state budget reserve for K-12 schools and community colleges called the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA). The PSSSA requires that when certain conditions are met, the state must deposit a portion of General Fund revenues into this reserve as part of California’s Prop. 98 funding guarantee (see section on Prop. 98).
The BSA is not California’s only reserve fund. The 2018-19 budget agreement created the Safety Net Reserve Fund, which holds funds intended to be used to maintain benefits and services for CalWORKs and Medi-Cal participants in the event of an economic downturn. Additionally, each year, the state deposits additional funds into a “Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties” (SFEU) — a reserve fund where state leaders have a lot of flexibility and discretion as to when and how they can use the available funds.
The current year (2022-23) budget enacted in mid-2022 projected $23.3 billion in the BSA; $9.5 billion in the PSSSA; $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve; and $3.5 billion in the SFEU. However, revenue adjustments in the current year result in updated 2022-23 projections in the governor’s proposed budget — $21.5 billion in the BSA; $8.1 billion in the PSSSA; $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve; and $17.2 billion in the SFEU, which fluctuates throughout the year based on changes in revenues.
The Governor’s proposal does not draw down the BSA, PSSSA, or Safety Net Reserve to cover the projected state revenue shortfall. For 2023-24, the proposal projects a BSA balance of $22.4 billion, a PSSSA balance of $8.5 billion, and a Safety Net Reserve balance of $900 million. The SFEU is projected to be $3.8 billion.
Taking into account the BSA, PSSSA, Safety Net Reserve, and SFEU, the governor’s proposal would include total reserves of $35.6 billion in 2023-24.
While the administration does not propose to use any reserve funds to close the projected state budget shortfall, state leaders should consider whether using a portion of those funds will be needed in 2023-24. Building up healthy reserves during periods of economic growth is intended to help offset the fluctuations in state revenues that result from having a personal income tax system that asks those with higher incomes to pay more. The point is not to maintain high levels of reserves at all times, but to instead use available reserves in the event of budget shortfalls to ensure that essential services can be provided to Californians. State leaders should be cautious about using reserves with significant economic uncertainty about the period ahead, but using a portion of reserves during this window of declining state revenues may also be appropriate.
Understanding Governor Newsom’s 2023-24 State Budget Proposal
Join us on January 19 as our Budget Center experts explore how the state is managing an uncertain revenue landscape.
Governor Keeps Commitment to Expand Medi-Cal to All Undocumented Immigrants
Building on the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA), California has substantially expanded access to health coverage in recent years. More than 15 million Californians with modest incomes — nearly half of whom are Latinx — are projected to receive free or low-cost health care through Medi-Cal (California’s Medicaid program) in 2022-23. Another 1.7 million Californians purchase health coverage through Covered California, our state’s health insurance marketplace. Nonetheless, many Californians — including immigrants who are undocumented — remain uninsured, while those with health coverage often face high monthly premiums and excessive out-of-pocket costs, such as copays and deductibles, when they seek health care services.
The governor’s proposed budget protects major health care investments that were enacted in the 2022 Budget Act. Specifically, the budget:
Maintains the commitment to expand Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented immigrants ages 26 to 49 starting January 1, 2024. In recent years, California has expanded eligibility for comprehensive Medi-Cal coverage to certain immigrants who qualify for the program except for their immigration status. This includes children and young adults up to age 25 as well as adults age 50 and older. However, undocumented adults ages 26 to 49 continue to be excluded. The enacted 2022-23 budget began the process of closing this eligibility gap by extending full-scope coverage to these adults no sooner than January 1, 2024. This expansion is estimated to cost $844.5 million ($635.3 million General Fund) in 2023-24, rising to $2.1 billion ($1.6 billion General Fund) in 2024-25, and $2.5 billion ($2 billion General Fund) ongoing. These figures include the cost of providing In-Home Supportive Services to newly eligible adults who are anticipated to enroll in the program.
Maintains $1.5 billion General Fund to expand the state’s health care workforce, but over more time than initially planned in the 2022 Budget Act. These investments include funding to increase nurses, community health workers, social workers, behavioral health providers, and primary care providers. The proposed budget defers $68 million in 2022-23 and $329.4 million in 2023-24 for certain workforce programs, with these funds proposed to be reallocated in 2024-25 and 2025-26 instead ($198.7 million each year).
In addition, the proposed budget:
Assumes the federal government will renew California’s Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax effective January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2026 to maintain Medi-Cal funding. The MCO tax essentially reduces — or “offsets” — state General Fund spending on Medi-Cal by well over $1 billion per year. The renewal of the MCO tax, which requires federal approval, is estimated to offset $6.5 billion in General Fund spending over the three years.
Proposes to invest $200 million ($15 million General Fund) in 2024-25 to support access to reproductive health services. Given the Supreme Court’s decision to end a constitutional right to an abortion as well as states’ actions to restrict access to abortion care — both of which severely undermine the health and economic security of pregnant people — California has seen an increase in patients seeking abortion and other reproductive health services. The administration plans to develop a federal demonstration waiver that would support access to family planning services for Medi-Cal enrollees as well as strengthen the state’s reproductive health safety net.
While the proposed budget will improve health care access and affordability for many Californians, a major missed opportunity is that the governor’s administration does not provide assistance to help Californians purchase health coverage through Covered California — even though the state already has the money set aside to do so. Specifically, the administration plans to transfer $333.4 million from the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund to the General Fund. The revenue in this fund comes from the state’s individual mandate penalty and is intended to help lower the cost of care in Covered California. The administration suggests that these funds could be returned to the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund as soon as 2025-26. However, state leaders should immediately provide greater financial assistance to Californians who are uninsured and struggling to purchase coverage through Covered California given that premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs are on the rise. Access to timely, quality, and comprehensive health care services is critical because it promotes overall physical and mental health. When people do not have access to health coverage, they are less likely to receive preventive care, less likely to receive treatment for chronic health conditions, and more likely to report a poor health status.
Proposed Budget Sustains Major Behavioral Health Initiatives
Behavioral health services — mental health care and/or treatment for substance use — are primarily provided by California’s 58 counties, with funding from the state and federal governments. Even before the pandemic, millions of Californians were coping with mental health conditions or substance use disorders and too many also confronted challenges in accessing care. The pandemic heightened the need for behavioral health services, making support for Californians’ mental health and well-being a more urgent priority for state leaders.
In recent years, the administration launched various behavioral health initiatives, such as the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, which aims to transform California’s behavioral health system for all children and youth in California. This year, the administration will seek approval of a new federal waiver called California’s Behavioral Health Community-Based Continuum (CalBH-CBC) Demonstration to complement and build on existing behavioral health initiatives. The waiver is estimated to cost $6.1 billion ($314 million General Fund) over five years. Major reforms to the Medi-Cal program as well as the level of federal funding that will be provided must be negotiated with the federal government through the Medicaid waiver process. As such, CalBH-CBC implementation will depend on the availability of funding and federal approval.
The administration’s budget proposal also includes the following:
$375 million one-time General Fund to reform behavioral health payment in Medi-Cal. This funding will cover the non-federal share of behavioral health-related services and enable counties to participate in delivery system transformation, engage in value-based payment arrangements, and make long-term investments in behavioral health delivery systems at the local level.
$93 million in the Opioid Settlement Fund over four years beginning in 2023-24 for opioid and fentanyl response. This funding aims to increase access to naloxone, a life-saving medicine that reverses an opioid overdose, which is urgently needed. Over 7,000 Californians died due to opioid overdose and nearly 6,000 Californians died due to a fentanyl overdose in 2021.
Due to the state’s projected General Fund revenue decline, the proposed budget:
Maintains but partially delays funding for the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, which aims to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people with serious behavioral health conditions who are also experiencing unsheltered homelessness.Specifically,the proposed budget delays $250 million General Fund of the total $1.5 billion General Fund to 2024-25. The governor maintains $1 billion General Fund in 2022-23 and $250 million General Fund in 2023-24 for this program.
Delays funding the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program. This program provides competitive grants to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources. The Department of Health Care Services is currently in the planning process to administer the last round of funding for this program. The governor delays $480.7 million General Fund for 2022-23 to $240.4 million in 2024-25 and $240.3 million in 2025-26.
Investments in our behavioral health system are critical, especially now. The governor’s commitment to improving access to behavioral health services can support Californians who are coping with mental health conditions or substance use disorders. These investments can also reduce hospitalization or even incarceration due to behavioral health conditions.
Governor Cuts Funding to Rebuild Public Health Workforce
The California Department of Public Health protects and promotes the health of all Californians through infectious disease control, chronic disease prevention, and more. Despite its important responsibilities, funding for this department has not kept pace with the cost of responding to ongoing and emerging health threats. In recent years, state leaders have taken initial steps to invest in the state’s public health infrastructure. Specifically, the 2022 Budget Act included $300 million ongoing General Fund for public health infrastructure at the state and local level. While this major infrastructure investment was sustained, the governor cuts funding for various public health workforce training and development programs by $49.8 million General Fund over four years.
COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing public health threat for communities across the state. The proposed budget includes $176.6 million General Fund in 2023-24 to sustain the state’s COVID-19 response efforts. This is consistent with the SMARTER Plan that the governor unveiled last year to continue efforts to increase access to COVID-19 vaccinations, boosters, testing, and treatment.
State leaders can do more to make sure all Californians have the opportunity to be healthy and thrive. Given that structural racism continues to have a profound impact on the health and well-being of many communities across the state, the administration and other state leaders can employ a variety of strategies to combat the effects of historical and ongoing racist policies and practices. Such strategies include declaring racism a public health crisis at the state level and establishing dedicated funding to support community-based organizations, clinics, and tribal organizations in their efforts to advance health equity.
Homelessness & Housing
Proposed Budget Maintains Earlier Commitments to Address Homelessness
Having a safe and stable place to call home is the most basic foundation for health and well-being no matter one’s age, gender, race, or ability. Still, over 171,000 Californians were experiencing homelessness at the last point-in-time count. Becoming unhoused has lasting and devastating effects on an individual’s physical and mental health and seriously disrupts individuals’ ability to remain employed, attend school, and access healthcare or other basic needs. Deeply rooted inequities have also placed Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Pacific Islander Californians, adults without children, older adults, and LGBTQ+ individuals at higher risk of facing homelessness within their lifetimes.
Yet, the proposed 2023-24 budget does not allocate new substantial funding to build on the governor’s commitment to address homelessness — including a lack of targeted funds for rental assistance or permanent housing adequate to meet needs. This year, the administration is primarily focused on establishing stronger accountability measures and maintains previously promised funds from the 2022-23 Budget Act for 2023-24, including:
$1 billion General Fund for the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program that provides local jurisdictions with flexible funds to address homelessness.
$400 million General Fund for encampments resolution grants for local jurisdictions.
$250 million General Fund for the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program, which supports people experiencing homelessness with serious behavioral health conditions through short-term bridge housing and services. This amount reflects a $250 million General Fund reduction from the 2022 enacted budget that is proposed to be reallocated in 2024-25 (see Behavioral Health section).
As homelessness is deeply interlinked with health, the proposed budget leverages potential federal and state Medicaid funds for homelessness prevention and rehousing assistance if select waivers are approved by the federal government. This includes:
The CalAIM Transitional Rent Waiver Amendment, which would provide up to six months of rent or temporary housing to eligible unhoused individuals or those at risk of homelessness who are transitioning out of institutions or foster care and are at risk of inpatient hospitalization or emergency care. This is estimated to cost $17.9 million ($6.3 million General Fund) in 2025-26 and will increase to $116.6 million ($40.8 million General Fund) at full implementation.
The California Behavioral Health and Community-Based Continuum (CalBH-CBC) Demonstration that would allow rental payments or temporary housing coverage for individuals enrolled in Medi-Cal with serious behavioral health conditions (see Behavioral Health section).
Additionally, the governor is moving forward with the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act. Starting in October 2023, select counties will provide unhoused or at-risk of becoming unhoused Californians with untreated schizophrenia spectrum or other psychotic disorders with a court-ordered treatment plan that includes behavioral health treatment, housing, and other services. This framework will be implemented statewide by December 2024. This approach targets the small number of unhoused individuals who lack decision-making capacity due to an untreated serious behavioral health condition, though stakeholders still have concerns regarding adequacy of permanent housing resources, respect for participants’ rights, and other factors. The proposed budget builds on previous funding and allocates an additional $16.5 million General Fund in 2023-24, $66.5 million General Fund in 2024-25, and $108.5 million in 2025-26 ongoing to support county behavioral health department costs. The budget also adjusts the allocations to the Judicial Branch for CARE Act costs to $23.8 million General Fund in 2023-24, $50.6 million in 2024-25, and $68.5 million in 2025-26 and ongoing, while also adding $6.1 million General Fund in 2023-24 and $31.5 million in 2025-26 and ongoing to support legal counsel services for CARE participants provided by public defenders and legal services organizations.
Governor Proposes No New Investments in Affordable Housing
Safe and stable housing is a critical basic need for all individuals, but many Californians are unable to maintain stable housing because of unaffordable housing costs. Renters, people with low incomes, Black and Latinx Californians, and Californians who are undocumented are especially likely to struggle to keep up with housing costs.
The governor’s budget proposal generally maintains the funding for affordable housing development that was included in the 2022-23 budget agreement for use in 2023-24. However, despite noting California’s continuing, serious housing affordability challenges, the governor proposes no additional or expanded investments to increase the supply of affordable housing. The budget proposal does not include new funding to replace the Prop. 1 bond funds that are expected to be exhausted in spring 2023, which support the development of affordable multi-family housing.
Trigger reductions for 2023-24 are proposed for $300 million that was included in the 2022-23 state budget agreement for homeownership programs (specifically $200 million for the Dream for All program and $100 million for CalHome) and for $50 million that was included for 2022-23 for the CalHFA Accessory Dwelling Unit program. These reductions would be restored if sufficient General Fund is available in January 2024. The governor also proposes delaying to future years some of the funds included in the 2022-23 budget agreement that support construction or acquisition of housing for low-income public college students.
state budget terms defined
What’s the difference between a trailer bill and policy bill? A deficit and an operating deficit? And what exactly is a “Budget Bill Jr.?” Our Glossary of State Budget Terms answers that and more.
Governor’s Budget Makes No New Investments in Refundable Tax Credits for Low-Income Californians
California’s Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC), Young Child Tax Credit, and Foster Youth Tax Credit are refundable income tax credits that collectively help millions of families and individuals with low incomes pay for basic needs like food. These credits also help to promote racial and gender equity by targeting cash to Californians of color, immigrants, and women who are frequently blocked from economic opportunities and forced into low-paying jobs that fail to provide economic security.
The administration does not propose to make any new investments in these tax credits. Yet Californians’ need for cash support remains high. About 2 in 3 households with incomes under $35,000 reported difficulty affording basic needs like groceries this past fall and the economic challenges facing many will worsen with the expiration of federal supports, such as emergency SNAP/CalFresh food assistance benefits.
Proposed Budget Includes Only Modest Required Increase in CalWORKs Grants
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids program (CalWORKs) is a critical support that provides modest cash assistance for families with low incomes, particularly families of color. The governor’s budget proposal includes a modest 2.9% increase to CalWORKs grants (at an estimated $87 million cost in 2023-24). This increase is required by AB 85 of 2013, which links CalWORKs grant increases to projected sales tax revenues.
This proposed grant increase falls short in meeting the minimal needs of CalWORKs families, however. In recent years state policymakers have raised the maximum CalWORKs grant above the deep poverty threshold (50% of the federal poverty line) for some CalWORKs families, but not for many of those with an excluded family member, unfairly leaving these children and families behind with less assistance to meet basic needs. The governor’s budget proposal again fails to raise CalWORKs grants above deep poverty for all families. The governor’s proposal also misses an opportunity to provide funding to end the CalWORKs work participation rate penalty for counties, a racist and sexist policy that works against recent CalWORKs program reforms and hinders the CalWORKs program from helping parents address barriers.
Budget Proposes No New Food Assistance Funding
No Californian should have to worry about whether they’ll be able to put food on the table. But about 1 in 10 California households sometimes or often do not have enough to eat, according to a recent Census Bureau survey.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — known as CalFresh in California — is a federally funded program that helps eligible households with low incomes put food on the table, currently supporting around 5 million Californians. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, CalFresh recipients have been receiving additional support through federal emergency allotments, which have increased a household’s benefits to the maximum allotment for its family size. This policy provided an additional $500 million in benefits to CalFresh households in December 2022 alone. The recent federal spending package included a February 2023 end date for these emergency allotments, meaning some households participating in CalFresh will soon see their food assistance benefits plummet. For example, some one-to-two person households will see their monthly benefits drop from $281 to just $23, even as food costs have increased significantly over the past year. The governor’s proposal does not include any additional food assistance to help support families during this transition.
Additionally, federal law excludes undocumented immigrants from SNAP eligibility, and Californians in undocumented immigrant families were three times as likely to struggle to meet their basic needs than those in non-immigrant families even before the COVID-19 pandemic and recent inflation. Recent state budgets have taken steps toward ending this exclusion for undocumented adults ages 55 and older by planning to include them in the state-funded California Food Assistance Program (CFAP), which already provides CalFresh-equivalent benefits to some immigrants excluded from federally funded benefits.
The governor’s 2023-24 proposed budget indicates that this expansion will be implemented beginning January 1, 2027, after county benefits technology systems have been updated to handle this eligibility change. The budget proposal does not include any new commitments to further expand CFAP and fully end the exclusion of undocumented households from vital food supports.
The governor’s budget does include $50 million ($17.1 million General Fund) in 2023-24 to improve the security features for electronic benefit transfer (EBT) of CalFresh and CalWORKs benefits to protect recipients from benefits theft, which has been on the rise. The proposal also commits to another $23 million ($7.9 million General Fund) in 2024-25 and $3.5 million ($1.2 million General Fund) in 2025-26 for EBT security improvements.
Governor Increases SSP Grants, but Falls Somewhat Short of Prior Commitments
Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants help well over 1 million low-income seniors and people with disabilities to pay for housing and other necessities. Grants are provided to individuals and couples and are funded with both federal (SSI) and state (SSP) dollars. State policymakers made deep cuts to the SSP portion of these grants in 2009 and 2011 to help close budget shortfalls caused by the Great Recession. Except for a small increase provided in 2017, the recession-era cuts to SSP grants remained in effect for more than a decade.
State leaders changed course in 2021 and adopted a substantial (24%) increase to SSP grants that took effect on January 1, 2022. Also in 2021, state leaders committed to providing an additional increase to SSP grants in January 2024, subject to funding being provided in the 2023-24 state budget. Part of this increase has already taken effect, with state leaders raising the maximum monthly SSP grants for individuals from $160.72 in 2021 to $219.73 in 2023. For couples, the maximum monthly SSP grant rose from $407.14 in 2021 to $556.62 in 2023.
The governor’s proposal:
Increases the state’s portion of SSI/SSP grants in 2024, but not as much as previously committed. As noted above, an increase to the maximum monthly SSP grants took effect January 1. The governor calls for an additional increase to take effect January 1, 2024, raising the maximum SSP grants for individuals from $219.73 in 2023 to $238.62 in 2024.For couples, the maximum monthly SSP grant would increase from $556.62 in 2023 to $604.49 in 2024. These new maximum SSP grant levels would fall somewhat short of the 24% increase originally anticipated by state lawmakers. For example, assuming the January 2022 grant levels were raised by 24%, the maximum grant for individuals should rise to roughly $247 and the maximum grant for couples should go up to nearly $626 as of January 2024.
Does not commit to future increases that would allow grants to keep up with the cost of living and fully make up for prior grant reductions. Even with an increase in SSP grants in 2022, 2023, and 2024, the maximum SSP payment for individuals in 2024 — $238.62 — falls far short of the level it would have reached — more than $360 — if state leaders had consistently adjusted this grant for annual changes in the cost of living since 2008, according to Budget Center calculations. In other words, grants have not kept pace with the cost of living in California due to state policy choices, leaving many low-income seniors and people with disabilities less able to make ends meet.
Proposed Budget Contains No Child Care New Slots or Rate Increases in 2023-24
California’s subsidized child care and development system has long been critical to the state’s economic infrastructure, helping families struggling to make ends meet cover the high cost of early care and education for their children. However, due to inadequate funding, relatively few eligible families receive subsidized care. In addition, payment rates for child care providers are too low despite recent increases to payment rates, leaving providers struggling to keep up with rising costs on thin financial margins and unable to pay fair and just wages that reflect the critical value of early educators’ profession.
The governor’s proposed budget:
Continues to fund over 100,000 child care slots that policymakers created during the past two budget cycles, but does not propose additional slots for 2023-24. The governor indicates that “thousands of newly available slots since 2021-22 have not yet been filled.” Instead, the governor proposes to fund 20,000 new slots during the following fiscal year — 2024-25 — rather than during 2023-24.
Does not call for child care provider rate increases during 2023-24. However, the state will continue developing — in partnership with the Child Care Providers United – California union — a single rate reimbursement structure for providers. In addition, rate increases could be considered as part of negotiations between the state and CCPU on a successor agreement to the current contract, which expires on June 30, 2023.
Does not propose to extend the current state policy waiving family fees for child care and development programs. The 2022-23 budget package used one-time federal funds to waive family fees, which can be unaffordable for families who are living paycheck to paycheck. The current fee waiver expires on June 30, 2023, and the governor does not propose to extend this policy.
Includes over $300 million General Fund to support an estimated 8.13% statutory cost-of-living adjustment. This increase would be provided to child care and development programs ($301.7 million) as well as the Child and Adult Food Program ($1.5 million).
The Governor Fails to Expand Paid Sick Leave
In California, the state’s paid family leave, disability insurance, and paid sick leave programs provide workers with paid time off from work to care for themselves or a family member. Paid family leave and disability insurance payments come from the state Disability Insurance Fund, which is made up entirely of worker contributions. State policymakers recently approved an increase in payment rates for these programs to 90% of earnings for workers with very low incomes and to 70% for all other workers starting in 2025. This avoids rates reverting to their previous levels of only 55% of earnings.
Most California workers are also entitled to at least 24 hours of paid sick leave per year. State policymakers temporarily expanded the amount of paid sick leave available to California workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing up to 80 hours of annual leave for COVID-related reasons. This expansion expired at the end of 2022, leaving many workers with just 3 days of paid sick leave to care for themselves or a family member.
In his proposed budget, the governor:
Reaffirms existing relief to small businesses and nonprofits for costs associated with the COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. In the 2022-2023 budget, the governor appropriated $250 million in relief grants to these organizations to help offset costs of employees taking paid sick leave due to COVID-19-related reasons. These grants have not yet been made available so the $250 million previously appropriated still remains as support for small businesses and nonprofits.
Does not expand paid sick leave. Despite providing relief for businesses to cover sick leave expenses related to COVID-19, the governor does not extend support for workers. By letting the supplemental paid sick leave expire and choosing not to expand the state’s inadequate paid sick leave policy, many workers are left with just three days of paid sick leave per year. State leaders should require employers to provide additional paid sick days for workers so that all Californians are able to care for themselves or their loved ones when they are ill, and no one has to choose between going to work while sick or losing their paycheck and maybe their job.
Budget Maintains Some Previous Commitments to Immigrant Californians
California has the largest share of immigrant residents of any state, and half of all California workers are immigrants or children of immigrants. More than 2 million Californians are undocumented, according to estimates.
The governor’s budget proposal maintains some key recent commitments to immigrant Californians. Specifically, the budget:
Continues to fund full inclusion in Medi-Cal for otherwise eligible Californians regardless of immigration status beginning in January 2024 (see the Health Coverage section).
Continues to plan the first step to end the exclusion of otherwise eligible undocumented Californians from food assistance by including undocumented individuals age 55+ in the California Food Assistance Program. The budget proposes beginning benefit distribution in 2027 (see the Food Assistance section).
In terms of new proposals, the governor notes that there are unmet needs for humanitarian support for migrants at the border, and proposes working with the federal government to leverage resources and “assess operational needs to inform a 2023-24 investment in these humanitarian efforts” to include in the May Revision.
Governor Continues Multiyear Plans to Boost Early Learning Opportunities
California funds two pre-kindergarten programs: transitional kindergarten (TK) and the California State Preschool Program. TK provides two years of kindergarten through local educational agencies (LEAs) and, reflecting a recent expansion, is currently available to children whose 5th birthdays fall between September 2 and February 2. The California State Preschool Program is an early learning program for 3- and 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families that is offered by LEAs and community-based organizations.
The governor’s proposed budget:
Continues to implement a phased-in expansion of the TK program. In 2021, state policymakers approved a multiyear plan to expand TK to all 4-year-olds in the state by 2025-26. The initial expansion took effect during the current fiscal year — 2022-23 — and covered children whose 5th birthdays fall between September 2 and February 2 (the previous cut-off was December 2). The proposed budget assumes the state will implement the next phase of the TK expansion in 2023-24, providing eligibility to children who turn 5 between September 2 and April 2 (about 46,000 children), at an estimated cost of over $850 million.
Continues to implement a multiyear plan to ensure the State Preschool Program serves a greater diversity of children. The 2022-23 budget package increased payment rates for certain children enrolled in state preschool, including children with disabilities, dual language learners, and 3-year-olds. In exchange, preschool providers have begun enrolling more children with disabilities and providing enhanced services to dual language learners. The governor proposes to continue implementing this plan in 2023-24, at a cost of $64.5 million Proposition 98 General Fund and $51.8 million General Fund.
Delays a planned $550 million investment in preschool, TK, and full-day kindergarten facilities from 2023-24 to 2024-25. This investment is intended to help build new school facilities or retrofit existing buildings in order to provide appropriate spaces for preschool, TK, and full-day kindergarten.
Includes roughly $175 million to support an 8.13% statutory cost-of-living adjustment for the state preschool program. This increase reflects $112 million Proposition 98 General Fund and $63.3 million General Fund.
K-14 Education’s Minimum Funding Level Drops Due to Lower Revenue Estimates
Approved by voters in 1988, Proposition 98 constitutionally guarantees a minimum level of annual funding for K-12 schools, community colleges, and the state preschool program. The governor’s proposed budget assumes a 2023-24 Prop. 98 funding level of $108.8 billion for K-14 education, $690 million above the 2023-24 minimum funding guarantee. Despite the governor’s proposal to provide more Prop. 98 funding in 2023-24 than is constitutionally required, the 2023-24 Prop. 98 funding level would be approximately $1.6 billion below the estimated 2021-22 Prop. 98 funding level of $110.4 billion. The Prop. 98 guarantee tends to reflect changes in state General Fund revenues and the proposed budget’s estimate of 2022-23 General Fund revenue is lower than estimates in the 2022-23 budget agreement. As a result, the Governor’s budget proposal assumes a 2022-23 Prop. 98 funding level of $106.9 billion, approximately $3.5 billion below the level assumed in the 2022-23 budget agreement.
Based on projections in the governor’s budget, funds in the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA) — the state budget reserve for K-12 schools and community colleges — will total $8.5 billion by the end of 2023-24, $1 billion lower than the 2022-23 balance estimated in the 2022-23 budget agreement (see Reserves section). Because the PSSSA balance is projected to exceed 3% of the total K-12 share of the Prop. 98 minimum funding level in 2022-23, current law would continue to prevent K-12 school districts from maintaining more than 10% of their budgets in local reserves in 2023-24.
Proposed Budget Includes Large Cost-of-Living Adjustment for K-12 Education
The largest share of Prop. 98 funding goes to California’s school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education (COEs), which provide instruction to 5.9 million students in grades kindergarten through 12. The governor’s proposed budget would provide a large cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to the state’s K-12 education funding formula — the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) — but to do so would significantly reduce one-time funding for the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Block Grant. Specifically, the governor’s proposed budget:
Increases LCFF funding by more than $4 billion. The LCFF provides school districts, charter schools, and COEs a base grant per student, adjusted to reflect the number of students at various grade levels, as well as additional grants for the costs of educating English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth. The proposed budget would fund a 8.13% COLA for the LCFF, but uses $613 million in one-time dollars in 2022-23 and $1.4 billion in one-time dollars in 2023-24 to help pay for the large increase in ongoing support for the LCFF. According to the Assembly Budget Committee, total LCFF funding would reach $80.0 billion in 2023-24.
Cuts approximately $1.2 billion from the Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant. The governor proposes reducing one-time funding for a discretionary block grant provided to local educational agencies as part of the 2022-23 budget agreement from nearly $3.6 billion to approximately $2.3 billion. This proposed cut would free up one-time funding the administration allocates for LCFF costs in 2022-23 and 2023-24.
Provides $669 million to fund COLAs for non-LCFF programs. The governor’s proposed budget funds a 8.13% COLA for several categorical programs that remain outside of the LCFF, including special education, child nutrition, and American Indian Education Centers.
Includes $300 million for a new “equity multiplier” add-on to the LCFF. The governor’s proposal would provide ongoing funding to “be allocated to local educational agencies based on school-site eligibility, using a more targeted methodology than the existing supplemental grant eligibility.” The equity multiplier is intended to increase funding for the state’s highest-needs schools and would be accompanied by changes to the state’s K-12 accountability system intended to identify and address student group or school-level equity gaps within a local educational agency.
Provides $250 million to increase one-time funding for literacy programs. The governor’s proposal is intended for schools in high-poverty areas to hire additional personnel to improve the quality of reading instruction and would build upon $250 million in one-time funding for the Literacy Coaches and Reading Specialists Grant Program provided in the 2022-23 budget agreement.
Provides $100 million in one-time funding for cultural enrichment. The governor’s proposal would support local educational agencies to provide high school seniors access to experiences such as museum visits and art enrichment activities.
Reduces funding for the School Facility Program (SFP) by $100 million. The proposal would reduce a planned 2023-24 SFP allocation from approximately $2.1 to approximately $2.0 billion.
Additional Dollars to Support CCC Student Enrollment Included in Proposed Budget
A portion of Proposition 98 funding provides support for California’s Community Colleges (CCCs), the largest postsecondary education system in the country, which serves high percentages of students of color and students with low incomes. CCCs prepare approximately 1.8 million students to transfer to four-year institutions or to obtain training and employment skills.
The proposed 2023-24 spending plan proposes additional funds to support student enrollment and retention, a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), and a decrease in funding for deferred maintenance projects. Specifically, the proposed spending plan:
Proposes a 8.13% COLA for apportionments and other programs. This percentage translates to $652.6 million ongoing Prop. 98 dollars for the Student Centered Funding Formula (SCFF) and $28.8 million ongoing Prop. 98 for enrollment growth. The proposal also provides $92.5 million ongoing Prop. 98 dollars to fund the same percentage COLA for other CCC categorical programs and the Adult Education Program.
Allocates $200 million one-time Prop. 98 dollars to support student enrollment and retention. This would be the third round of funding in the last three years to support strategies to increase enrollment and improve retention rates given the large declines in student enrollment since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Proposes a decrease of $213 million one-time Prop. 98 for deferred maintenance projects. This reduction reflects a portion of one-time dollars allocated for this purpose in the 2022 Budget Act.
Other proposals included in the 2023-24 governor’s budget include:
Providing additional “flexibility” to CCC districts. This proposal would provide community college districts that are making progress toward meeting goals established in the CCC “roadmap” with “additional categorical spending flexibilities and the ability to consolidate reporting requirements.” More details on this plan will be provided in May.
Providing dual enrollment opportunities. The budget proposal also “requests” that community colleges establish dual enrollment agreements with Local Educational Agencies and offer service-learning opportunities through dual enrollment to all high school students.
Proposed Budget Continues Multiyear Funding Investments in the CSU and the UC
California supports two public four-year higher education institutions: the California State University (CSU) and the University of California (UC). The CSU provides undergraduate and graduate education to roughly462,000students on 23 campuses, and the UC provides undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to about290,000students on 10 campuses.
The 2023-24 budget proposal provides 5% base increases to both the CSU and the UC. This increase is part of the multiyear funding investments established through agreements between the administration and the CSU and UC systems. The “compacts” outline major goals, including increasing access, improving student success and advancing equity, increasing affordability, improving collaboration among systems of higher education, and supporting workforce preparedness.
For the CSU, the spending plan includes:
$227.3 million ongoing General Fund dollars for a base increase to make progress toward meeting certain goals outlined in the multiyear agreement.
A proposal to shift $404.8 million in appropriated funds to CSU bond funds for six capital outlay projects at several CSU campuses — these budget appropriations were part of the 2022-23 Budget Act. The proposal includes $27 million ongoing General Fund for debt service on those bonds.
For the UC, the governor’s budget proposes:
$215.5 million ongoing General Fund dollars for operating costs and enrollment growth.
An increase of $30 million ongoing General Fund tosupport resident undergraduate enrollment growth.
Delaying a total of $366 million in 2022-23 and 2023-24 to 2024-25 for three capital outlay projects across four UC campuses.
Other higher education proposals in the spending plan include:
An increase of $227 million one-time General Fund for the Middle Class Scholarship — the 2022 Budget Act included intent to supplement funding for this program in 2023-24.
Delaying $250 million from 2023-24 to 2024-25 for affordable student housing, including conversion of commercial properties into affordable student housing for CCC, CSU, and UC students.
Delaying $1.15 billion in 2023-24 and 2024-25 to 2025-26 for the student housing revolving loan program established in the 2022 Budget Act to support all three systems of higher education.
See our report Dollars and Democracy: A Guide to the California State Budget Process to learn more about the state budget and budget process.
Governor Reduces a Range of Workforce Development Investments
The administration proposes to reduce spending on a range of workforce development programs, with several reductions slated to be reversed next year if General Fund revenues are sufficient in January 2024. Reductions that are intended to be reversed include:
A $40 million General Fund cut ($20 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25) to the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund, which is housed at the Department of Industrial Relations and is used to invest in and expand non-traditional apprenticeships. This reduces the total three-year investment in the fund included in the 2022 Budget Act from $175 million to $135 million.
A $20 million General Fund cut ($10 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25) for the Employment Development Department to provide emergency medical technician training. This reduces the total three-year investment made in the 2022 Budget Act from $60 million to $40 million.
A $20 million General Fund cut ($10 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25) to the California Workforce Development Board for the California Youth Leadership Program. This reduces the total three-year investment made in the 2022 Budget Act from $60 million to $40 million.
A $30 million General Fund cut ($15 million in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25) to the Department of Industrial Relations’ Women in Construction Unit, which promotes and supports women and non-binary individuals in skilled trade careers.
Spending reductions that the governor is not proposing to be restored if there are enough revenues in 2024 include:
A $49.8 million General Fund cut over four years for various public health workforce development programs, reducing total four-year spending from $65.6 million to $15.8 million.
The elimination of $25 million General Fund committed to the Department of Industrial Relations for the COVID Workplace Outreach Program in 2023-24.
The administration also proposes to defer $68 million General Fund in 2022-23 and $329.4 million in 2023-24 for various Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI) workforce programs. The administration proposes to appropriate these funds later, with $198.7 million slated to be allocated in both 2024-25 and 2025-26.
The budget also proposes to shift $14 million General Fund for workforce training related to wildfire and forest resilience to Proposition 98, reducing overall funding for this purpose by $1 million General Fund, to about $53 million.
Finally, the administration proposes $78.1 million ongoing General Fund to make the CaliforniansForAll Youth Jobs Corps program permanent “while providing pathways for undocumented Californians with work authorization.” This program, which connects youth who may not have access to traditional career-building resources to job opportunities, was authorized in the 2021 Budget Act and funded with one-time federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) funds. The administration also proposes to eliminate $25 million one-time General Fund included in last year’s budget to support additional summer employment opportunities through this program, noting that such services can be achieved through the ongoing funding provided to the Youth Jobs Corps.
Proposed Spending Plan Delays Expansion of Broadband Infrastructure Support
The pandemic exposed the inequities in access to computers and high-speed internet, also known as the digital divide. Access to such technology is necessary to participate in learning and other essential activities such as remote work, applying for jobs, virtual health appointments, and access to many other services. The digital divide disproportionately impacts low-income and Latinx households, as well as children and youth, seniors, and people with disabilities.
The 2023-24 spending plan proposes to defer more than $1.1 billion in funding to future years for last-mile infrastructure grants and the Loan Loss Reserve Fund. Both programs support the expansion of broadband infrastructure at the local level and are overseen by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
Last-mile infrastructure (wires, poles, cables, and other components) refers to the final section of a network that connects to middle-mile infrastructure (fiber-optic cables laid out over hundreds of miles) and provides high-speed internet access to individual communities and households. The Loan Loss Reserve Fund supports local governments, tribes, and nonprofits in financing local broadband infrastructure development.
Specifically, the proposed spending plan includes:
A deferral of $550 million for last-mile infrastructure grants at the CPUC. Under this proposal, the $550 million in 2023-24 would be deferred to 2024-25 ($200 million), 2025-26 ($200 million), and 2026-27 ($150 million).
Deferrals totaling $575 million for the Loan Loss Reserve Fund at the CPUC. Under this proposal, $175 million in 2022-23 and $400 million in 2023-24 would be deferred to 2024-25 ($300 million) and 2025-26 ($275 million).
Among all incarcerated adults, most — 91,547 — are housed in state prisons designed to hold fewer than 82,000 people. This level of overcrowding equals 111.7% of the prison system’s “design capacity,” which is below the prison population cap — 137.5% of design capacity — established by a 2009 federal court order. California also houses more than 4,800 people in facilities that are not subject to the cap, including fire camps, in-state “contract beds,” and community-based facilities that provide rehabilitative services. The sizable drop in incarceration has resulted both from 1) a series of justice system reforms enacted by voters and state leaders and 2) changes adopted in 2020 to further reduce prison overcrowding in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, such as suspending intakes from county jails and implementing early releases.
By the end of 2023, the state will complete the deactivation of certain facilities within six state-owned prisons, generating ongoing General Fund savings of $150 million.
By March 2024, the state will end its contract for the use of the California City Correctional Facility. California City is the last of several private prisons that the state began leasing to help alleviate overcrowding in state-owned prisons.
By March 2025, the state will shut down Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe.
Adults who are housed in these various facilities will be moved to “appropriate level” state-owned prisons, according to the administration.
This planned downsizing follows the closure of one state prison in September 2021 — Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy — and the anticipated shutdown of another state prison — California Correctional Center in Susanville — later this year. But California can do more. The state can safely close up to five state prisons, according to a 2020 report by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The ongoing savings from additional prison closures could be redirected to help people make the transition back to their communities more successfully and boost services to support survivors of crime, reduce poverty, increase housing stability, address substance use and mental health issues, and enhance the safety and well-being of our communities.
Governor Withdraws Unnecessary Payment on Federal Unemployment Insurance Loan
The proposed budget wisely withdraws a $750 million optional payment of a portion of the state’s outstanding federal loans for unemployment benefits that was slated for 2023-24, following a $250 million payment made in 2022-23. This payment would “provide no near-term economic relief to employers or workers,” according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) in their assessment of an even larger optional payment proposed by the governor last year, making it a logical place to scale back spending to preserve services that help Californians meet basic needs.
Even if the state had significant discretionary revenues to spend, pre-paying federal unemployment insurance loans wouldn’t make sense. California had to borrow billions of dollars from the federal government to pay for the unemployment benefits workers needed during the pandemic because businesses — particularly large, profitable corporations — hadn’t been paying enough in state payroll taxes to cover the true cost of the unemployment benefits their workers needed. Since businesses didn’t contribute enough prior to the pandemic, federal law requires them to start to gradually pay down this debt this year through small increases in the federal payroll tax rate. Businesses’ first payment toward the debt will amount to just $21 per employee for all of 2023 — the equivalent of 0.07% of a full-time minimum wage worker’s annual earnings.
If California were to pay down any of this debt, it would essentially provide an across-the-board tax break for businesses that haven’t been paying enough in taxes to fund unemployment benefits for their workforce for decades. And it would especially benefit large profitable corporations, which are paying less than half the amount in state taxes, as a share of their income, than they did a generation ago. Moreover, making an unnecessary prepayment on federal unemployment loans would take critical resources away from investments that could address Californians’ urgent needs for affordable housing, health care, and child care and a strong safety net.
The governor also rescinds $500 million in rebates that policymakers agreed to include in the 2023-24 budget to reimburse small businesses for increased federal payroll taxes.
Governor Does Not Include Details on Price Gouging Penalty on Oil Companies
Last fall, Governor Newsom called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies after a major spike in gas prices in California. In December, he convened a special session of the Legislature to address the issue of high gas prices and tighten regulation of oil companies operating in the state. At that time, he modified the original proposal and introduced — along with Senator Nancy Skinner — a bill to institute a “price gouging penalty” on oil refiners. The stated goal of the penalty is to discourage oil refiners from engaging in price gouging, not to raise revenue for the state, but the proposal notes that any penalties collected would go into a special fund and be distributed back to Californians.
The governor’s budget proposal reiterates this intention but provides no further policy details on the proposal. Details still to be determined include the threshold at which the penalty would be triggered, the amount of the penalty, and the method for distributing penalty funds back to state residents. The governor notes that the details are to be worked out by the Legislature in special session convenings, and not through the budget process.
The Legislature may also decide to pursue a different approach to addressing high gas prices and their impact on Californians.
Proposal Includes More CalCompetes Grants, No New Small Business Funding
The governor proposes another $120 million for a third year of the California Competes (CalCompetes) grant program, which aims to increase jobs and business investments in the state by businesses that owe too little in state taxes to benefit from the CalCompetes Tax Credit program. The governor indicates that this extension is part of a strategy to leverage federal funding for semiconductor manufacturing and research and development.
At a time when the state’s revenue outlook is uncertain and many Californians continue to struggle with the basic costs of living, the dollars proposed for this grant program — which is not targeted to small business — may be more effectively used to support critical state services that help Californians meet their needs. While the CalCompetes program is better targeted than many other economic development incentives, there are still concerns about windfall benefits for businesses that would have created jobs in California even without receiving state assistance. And some research suggests that the positive employment effects of the California Competes credit are larger for workers living in areas with higher income and education levels, so workers with higher levels of need likely benefit less than well-off workers.
The governor’s proposal does not include any additional targeted small business aid, and it includes a $50 million reduction in previously committed funds for small business financial assistance through the state’s Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank). It also plans to recapture $92 million from the Small Business COVID-19 Relief Grant Program, which is the estimated amount of unused funds after all eligible businesses have received grants.
The governor also rescinds $500 million in rebates that policymakers agreed to include in the 2023-24 budget to reimburse small businesses for increased federal payroll taxes.
There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us