research proposal outline about poverty

Poverty Research Proposal

Introduction, poverty: statement of the problem, significance of the study, relevant literature review, methodology.

For a long time, poverty has been perceived to constitute lack or inadequacy of basic needs, including food, clothing, and shelter. The levels by which different societies achieve these three basic essentials vary, and this explains the differences in poverty levels among different societies. Today, America is described to have the highest level of poverty rate compared to other industrialized countries (Garcia, 2011).

To justify this, the recent and most current statistics from the Census Bureau shows that the level and rate of poverty in USA is increasing, with minority ethnic groups being the most disadvantaged (Dye, 2010).

In the past, numerous poverty reduction policies have been formulated and implemented, but their overall impact remains below expectations, as the main beneficiaries are the middle class in expense of the poor (Dye, 2010). Therefore, the situation calls for paradigm shift in policy formulation and implementation.

In the year 2010, poverty rate in USA stood at 15.1% up from 14.3% recorded in the previous year-2009 (USA Census Bureau, 2011). At the same time, it was noted that poverty rate for the last four years has been increasing at an estimated rate of 2.6%.

On overall, in 2010, estimates indicated that about 46.2 million Americans are poor and the rate of poverty increased was observed to affect almost all major ethnic groups in America: Whites, African American, Asians, Hispanic (USA Census Bureau, 2011).

Furthermore, the 2010 official statistics indicated the highest rate of poverty the country had experienced and recorded since 1993. Therefore, in order to address this issue of increasing poverty, there is need to conduct an action research that investigates public policy initiatives in USA with regard to poverty, and subsequently propose the most effective public policy that can be pursued successfully.

Poverty remains an issue that ought to be addressed in the American society as a way of achieving the American Dream. Social inclusion goals and objectives postulate that, the well-being of humankind is the essence of stability, peace, and societal development.

Therefore, addressing poverty is one way of achieving social inclusion goals. At the same time, there is need for an effective public policy that comprehensively addresses the issues of poverty in the country. Therefore, this study possesses the ability to create a sound body of knowledge that in turn can be used to create an effective public policy framework.

Poverty level in USA is increasing at gradual rate, and the overall impact of this to the society is huge (Garcia, 2011). Addressing poverty has assumed and utilized unilateral public policy models that in turn have led to inadequacy in tackling the issue of poverty.

For instance, many of the convectional poverty policies address education, employment, social security, health, economic growth, and tax (Anonymous, 2006). This has been done in separateness and the result has been construction, formulation, and implementation of skewed and weak poverty reduction models.

There is need to establish broad-based understanding of poverty and know that it interplays with other factors and elements simultaneously, hence any attempt to address poverty requires addressing the interplay of accompanying factors.

According to Corak (2005), in order to fight poverty, social and physical infrastructure and services can be funded and maintained effectively if the target groups are involved in designing, implementing, and monitoring them, as well as in ensuring accountability of the government officials responsible for such policies.

Primary and secondary research methods will be utilized, where primary data will be generated through actual field research techniques, while secondary data will be generated from works already done in the field. Furthermore, reliability and validity of information will be enhanced through use of both quantitative and qualitative techniques.

This will see the use of questionnaires, field interviews, poverty program surveys, and in-depth discussion. The aim of this will be to ensure that the public policy to be designed captures the aspect and essence of poverty and subsequent reduction strategies in broad perspective.

Poverty remains a social issue that requires clear strategies of addressing it. Efforts in the past have bore fruits, but given recent trends of increasing cases of poverty in the society, there is an urgent need to address poverty comprehensively. It is from this fact that it is recommended that addressing poverty in modern America require an action plan originating from an inclusive and integrated social equity policy strategy.

Anonymous. (2006). How can we solve the problem of poverty . Web.

Corak, M (2005). Equality of Opportunity and Inequality across the Generations: Challenges Ahead. Policy Options , 26(3), 78–83.

Dye, T.R. (2010). Understanding public policy (13th ed.). Longman: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Garcia, G. (2011). Mexican American and Immigrant Poverty in the United States . NY: Springer.

USA Census Bureau . (2011). ‘Poverty Highlights . USA Federal Press. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, July 11). Poverty Research Proposal. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-research-proposal/

"Poverty Research Proposal." IvyPanda , 11 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-research-proposal/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Poverty Research Proposal'. 11 July.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Poverty Research Proposal." July 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-research-proposal/.

1. IvyPanda . "Poverty Research Proposal." July 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-research-proposal/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Poverty Research Proposal." July 11, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/poverty-research-proposal/.

• School of Computing and Informatics: Strategy and Plan
• Implementation of the Solutions to the Healthcare Problems of Elderly and Schools
• Ogden Playground Project by Ghabrial & Hardy
• What is the Importance of Ethics When it Comes to Governance?
• Negotiation Analysis
• Public Policy Problems
• Florida Healthcare System: Policy Planning, Assessment, Evaluation, and Corrective Measures
• Vale in the Brazilian Government

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Understanding Poverty

Poverty Reduction a Win-Win

Climate change adaptation and poverty reduction go hand in hand, a new World Bank book argues. So why not kill two birds with one stone?

Publication

Inequality in the Labor Market

The World Development Report of 2013 measures, perhaps for the first time, inequality of opportunity to labor market outcomes in a discrete setting. It focuses on Europe and Central Asia.

You have clicked on a link to a page that is not part of the beta version of the new worldbank.org. Before you leave, we’d love to get your feedback on your experience while you were here. Will you take two minutes to complete a brief survey that will help us to improve our website?

Feedback Survey

Thank you for agreeing to provide feedback on the new version of worldbank.org; your response will help us to improve our website.

Thank you for participating in this survey! Your feedback is very helpful to us as we work to improve the site functionality on worldbank.org.

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Poverty

• First Online: 26 October 2013

Cite this chapter

• Nathaniel O. Agola 3 &
• Joseph L. Awange 4 , 5  

1657 Accesses

The concepts of poverty have developed rapidly over the last thirty years, and international attention is now focused more sharply on poverty reduction than it was twenty years ago. The Development Committee of the OECD countries has proposed reduction by half by 2015 the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. This proposal has been widely adopted by the international community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

European Community, Council Decision, 19 December 1984.

Details of the Welfare Monitoring Surveys are reported in the Economic Survey 1997 and have been extensively used in this study. The Append of this study contains the findings of these surveys.

Batson E (1941) Social survey of Cape Town, reports of the school of social science and social administration. University of Cape Town, New York

Google Scholar  

Batson E (1945) The poverty line in salisbury. University of Cape Town, New York

Bettison DS (1960) The poverty datum line in central Africa. Rhodes Livingstone J 21(27): 32–63

Collier P, Deepak L (1993) Poverty and Growth in Kenya, World Bank, Staff Working Paper No. 389, Washington, DC: The World Bank; World Bank, Kenya: employment growth for poverty alleviation, Washington, DC: The World Bank

Crawford E, Thorbecke E (1978) Employment, income distribution poverty alleviation and basic needs in Kenya, report of an ILO consulting mission. Cornell University, Ithaca

De Montauge T (1977) Peasants into Frenchmen: the modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Chatto and Windus, London, p 2

Griffin K (1989) Alternative strategies for economic development. St. Martin’s Press, New York

Orshansky M (1969) How poverty is measured. Monthly labour review, February, p 37. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Public expenditure on income maintenance programs, studies in resource allocation No. 3, Paris, July 1976, pp 62–64

Pillay PN (1973) A poverty datum line study among Africans in Durban, Occasional Paper No. 3. Department of Economics, University of Natal

Poduluk JR (1967) Income distribution and poverty in Canada. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1968

Rowntree BS (1901) Poverty: a study of town life. Macmillan, London

Sahlins M (1972) Stone age economics. Aldine-Atherton, Chicago

Sahlins M (1968) Notes on the Original Affluent Society. In: Lee RB, DeVore I (eds) Man the Hunter, New York: Aldine Publishing Company, pp. 85–89

Sen AK (1983) Poor, relatively speaking. Oxf Econ Pap 35:153–169

Sen AK (1984) Resources, values and development. Oxford, Blackwell

Smith A (1776) The Wealth of Nations, Book 5, Chapter 2 Part II, Methuen & Co., Ltd. London

Townsend P (1979) Poverty in the United Kingdom: a survey of household resources and standards of living. Penguin Books, London

Vandemortele JV (1982) Income distribution and poverty in Kenya: a statistical analysis. University of Nairobi, Nairobi

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Professor of International Economics, Doshisha University, Karasuma-dori, Kamidachiuri-agaru, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-0898, Japan

Nathaniel O. Agola

Department of Spatial Sciences, Curtin University, Kent Street, Bentley, WA, 6102, Australia

Joseph L. Awange

Geodetic Institute, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karksruhe, Germany

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathaniel O. Agola .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Agola, N.O., Awange, J.L. (2014). Theoretical Framework for Analyzing Poverty. In: Globalized Poverty and Environment. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39733-2_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39733-2_3

Published : 26 October 2013

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-642-39732-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-642-39733-2

eBook Packages : Earth and Environmental Science Earth and Environmental Science (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

memorial day

12 templates

holy spirit

36 templates

environmental science

21 templates

american history

74 templates

13 templates

Social Issues Thesis: Poverty and Homelessness

It seems that you like this template, social issues thesis: poverty and homelessness presentation, free google slides theme, powerpoint template, and canva presentation template.

Social injustices like poverty and homelessness must be stopped, and for that we must investigate its causes in thorough research. Why are we allowing a system to keep people on the streets, without food and house, while there are millions of empty houses around the world? This is a structural problem, and social mobility has long been gone, the capitalist dream has proven not to work and the consequences of it are impacting our lives, and the planet. If you have conducted a research on this issue and are planning to defend your thesis, this template will make your job easier. It contains lot of resources and a formal design that will make the most of your speech.

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 33 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides, Canva, and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the free resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Proposal on Poverty inequality and Social Development

2019, Poverty inequality and social Development

In the 21st century in both developed and developing countries the challenges of poverty, inequality and social or sustainable development remain significant food of thought.

Related Papers

Poverty, Inequality and Economic development

Enoch Ehurong

World poverty and inequality

Manieshi Fonseka

World poverty and inequality nowadays has become a trending topic among everyone. Usually poverty is a pronounced deprivation in well being. It can be defined narrowly or more broadly depending on how well the concept has been understood. Basically the narrow decision is linked with commodities whether the household sector or individuals have enough recourses to meet their basic needs. When it comes to the main case of poverty mostly it is been referred in monetary terms with respect to household income or consumption (Haughton & Khandker, 2009). more broader definitions of well being includes such items as a physical and mental health , close relationships , agency and participation , social connections , competence and self worth, and values and meaning ( wellbeing and poverty pathways, 2013). Basically there are two types of poverty. That is absolute poverty and relative poverty . Absolute poverty is the poverty below and official line set at the absolute standard of what households should be able to count on in order to meet their basic needs( Coudouel et al,. 2002,p.33) relative poverty is define as in relation to the other people in the society at the same time ( Hulme, 2010). There is an increasing in understanding that poverty is multidimensional but there is a tendency to focus on human development outcomes such as health, education, and nutrition when looking beyond income measure (poverty analysis discussion group, 2012). Moreover poverty can be seasonal or non seasonal. For example people can fall into poverty if the end of the dry season exhausts food stocks and then recover later. Nevertheless inequality and poverty are both two phenomena’s most people use to talk together. But it is different from each other. Inequality refers to disparities and discrepancies in areas such as income, wealth, education, health, nutrition, space, politics and social identity intercepting inequalities occur when people face inequality in multiple aspects of their lives. mostly vertical inequalities occur between individuals while the horizontal inequalities occur between the groups .mostly economic inequalities is often found in conjunction with either social inequalities faced by the people marginalized because of social inequalities like gender . In this research mostly focused on, World poverty and inequality its causes and measures Consequences of poverty and inequality and Its impact and future trends on the world .

Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks

Udaya Wagle

Brigitte Rohwerder

This topic guide introduces key readings and debates on poverty and inequality. It covers measurement and analysis, trends and projections, and understanding and addressing extreme poverty and inequality.

sonam choden

Frances Stewart

Jonathan Haughton

© 2009 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org E-mail: [email protected] All rights reserved 1 2 3 4 12 11 10 09 This volume is a ...

Daniel George

Management Studies ISSN 2328-2185

There is a global consensus that world economy need not only grow faster, but also grow in a way that the poor receive a greater share of the benefits of that growth. It is well documented that income inequality is on the rise, with the richest 10% earning up to 40% of total global income. The poorest 10% earn only between 2% and 7% of total global income. After long time of neglect, inequality has re-entered the mainstream development policy agenda at both national and global levels indicating that relevant policies should be universal in principle paying attention to the needs of disadvantaged and marginalized populations. As highlighted in almost all SDG's documents, income inequality is a global problem that requires global solutions. This involves improving the regulation and monitoring of financial markets and institutions, encouraging development assistance and foreign direct investment to regions where the need is greatest. Facilitating the safe migration and mobility of people is also key to bridging the widening divide. SDG 10 encompasses 10 targets with the objective of promoting social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status. Achieving SDG 10 reaffirms that the 2030 development agenda will focus not only on eradicating poverty but also on tackling inequalities in all its forms through adopting sound policies to empower the bottom percentile of income earners, and promote economic inclusion of all regardless of sex, race, or ethnicity. This paper analyses the resent status of income inequality and its relationship with economic growth and poverty in selected developing countries. The paper highlights that there is a triangular relationship between income distribution, poverty and economic growth; while accelerated economic growth is a primary factor in reducing poverty, inequalities can constrain poverty reduction significantly.

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Our Story & Mission

Our Strategy

Annual Reports & Finances

Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion

Code of Conduct & Associated Policies

Legal Disclosures

Explore Research

Public Data

Evidence Generation

Sectoral Expertise

Agriculture

Consumer Protection

Entrepreneurship & Private Sector Development

Financial Inclusion

Health & Nutrition

Human Trafficking

Intimate Partner Violence

Peace & Recovery

Social Protection

Research Funding

Open Opportunities

Closed Opportunities

Rigorous Research

High-Quality Data

Ethics & IPA IRB

Research Methods

Research Support

Evidence Use

COVID-19 Response

Embedded Evidence Labs

Policy Influence

Scaling What Works

Advisory Services

Poverty Measurement

Right-Fit Evidence

IPA has 20 country offices, listed here, as well as projects in 30+ more countries across the globe.

View Full Map

East Africa

West Africa

Burkina Faso

Côte d’Ivoire

Sierra Leone

Philippines

Latin America & the Caribbean

Dominican Republic

Equipping Decision-Makers

Influencing Policy & Programming

What Do We Mean by Impact?

Theory of Action

For Practitioners

For Policymakers

For Researchers

See funding opportunities»

Call for Proposals | Researcher Diversification Initiative | Exploratory Small Grant Funds for Researchers Based in Africa

In early 2021, Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA) began implementing a strategy to diversify its research network. While we have conducted more than 900 impact evaluations—alongside an extensive network of researchers and institutions from all across the world—only twenty-seven percent of our research network comes from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). 1 This mirrors development industry trends, where most research continues to be produced by researchers in the Global North.

At IPA, we believe that greater diversity and insight into the local context can lead to higher-quality research and more impactful policy and practice. Moreover, supporting global researchers in the South is normatively correct in addressing inequalities within the international development research community.

Therefore, we are soliciting proposals for a small grant fund that is part of our researcher diversification initiative. The fund targets African researchers in Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya to facilitate the development of researchers starting their careers as independent investigators in Africa. This call for proposals will result in the selection of one to two projects for each of the countries indicated, to be implemented by the successful PIs in collaboration with IPA Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya . Funding of 10,000 USD will be awarded to each project.

Submissions

We are pleased to invite submissions from researchers based in Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya . Successful proposals should align with both IPA's overarching research agenda and the specific sector priorities identified by IPA country offices in these respective regions.

In Ghana , the focus areas include Education, Health, Social Protection and Agriculture. In Nigeria , priority themes encompass Social Protection, Climate, Agriculture, Education and Health. In Uganda , the emphasis is on Mental Health, Education, Climate Change, and Early Childhood Development. Lastly, in Kenya , the focus will broadly be on Agriculture with an emphasis on food security, and social protection with an outlook on human protection & displaced livelihoods.

Proposals should incorporate a quantitative, empirical component, mixed-methods research, or exploratory work to establish the viability of such research approaches. We look forward to receiving innovative proposals that address critical issues and contribute to evidence-based policy and practice.

• Enable evidence-based high-quality research that addresses the global poverty problem
• Support research from African scholars, which can then inform future impact evaluation research
• To provide an opportunity for African researchers to gain experience in the preparation of grant applications and management
• To improve South-South communication and collaboration among researchers, policymakers, and implementers, and for community participation in research and agenda-setting

Requirements

These grants will fund exploratory work meant to develop preliminary research ideas. We expect these grants to help researchers develop subsequent impact evaluations. Activities may include travel, relationship development, descriptive or observational analysis, data development or collection, research assistance, and in some cases principal investigator time. These grants are earmarked for researchers, PhD students, and other researchers who do not have other sources of funding for exploratory work. Awards are capped at USD$10,000 .

The Researcher Diversification Strategy Initiative expects projects to be completed within six months of disbursement of funds.

Eligibility

Eligibility is restricted to Africa-based researchers. This refers to individuals who are (a) currently studying at a university or research institute in Africa, and/or b) currently teaching at an African university or research institute.

Note: African researchers can also include scholars based outside of Africa as part of the team.

Funding Criteria

• Academic contribution: Does the study make a significant contribution toward advancing knowledge in the field? Does it answer new questions or introduce novel methods, measures, or interventions? Is there academic relevance? How does the study compare with the existing body of research? Does the research strategy provide a bridge between a practical experiment and underlying economic theories?
• Policy relevance: Will results from the research have generalizable implications? How, if at all, will the “lessons learned” have relevance beyond this test case? Is there demand from policymakers for more/better information to influence their decisions in this area? If an intervention has been identified, is there potential for the implementing partner to scale up this intervention?
• Technical design: Does the exploratory work plan identify a path toward developing a research design that will appropriately answer the questions outlined in the proposal?
• Project viability: Are there any other logistical or political obstacles that might threaten the completion of the study, for example, government authorization or Human Subjects review? Do researchers describe how exploratory or piloting activities would inform a full-scale impact evaluation?
• Value of research: Is the cost of the study commensurate with the value of expected contributions to science and policy?

Additional Considerations

When reviewing proposals, the reviewers will also consider:

• Ethics: Reviewers will consider whether there are any risks of harm to research participants, what the proposed risk mitigation strategies are, and how the possible benefits of the research compare to the possible harms.
• Team diversity: The Researcher Diversification Strategy team welcomes proposals from diverse research teams. We would encourage Country Office teams to consider working across disciplines and require them to work with researchers from the countries where the project will take place.

Application Process

Please send all submissions to [email protected] . When applying, indicate the country you are seeking to work with and use the following templates for submitting your applications.

Note you cannot fill the templates below directly, you have to download them, then fill them out and send them to the email address provided.

• Template for Exploratory Grant Proposals
• Budget Template

The deadline for submission is Friday, April 19th, 2024 by 5 PM EAT.

To help clarify proposal requirements, a Q&A session will be held on Thursday, April 4th from 3-3:45 PM EAT. Register  here . 

First Look: Understanding the Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision

May 2024 | By California Budget & Policy Center

• Table of Contents
• Our Statement on the May Revision
• Event registration: Examining the Governor’s 2024-25 May Revision

Introduction

Governor Gavin Newsom released a summary of the May Revision to his proposed 2024-25 California state budget on May 10, projecting a $44.9 billion shortfall, or $27.6 billion shortfall, when taking into account early budget action taken by the legislature in April to reduce the shortfall by $17.3 billion. While many of the details are forthcoming, the governor proposes to close the budget gap through the partial use of reserves, spending cuts, and delays or deferrals of spending authorized in earlier years. While the $201 billion General Fund spending plan would protect many investments made in prior years, it also includes cuts and delays to programs and services that affect the day-to-day lives of Californians, particularly foster youth, Californians with disabilities, immigrant communities, students, and families with young children. Notably, the administration’s strategy demonstrates continued resistance to adopting long-term revenue solutions, putting corporate profits over families. This shortsighted approach exacerbates wealth inequality, stalls progress, and undermines the governor’s vision of a California for all.

WHat is the May Revision?

Released on or before May 14, the May Revision updates the governor’s economic and revenue outlook; adjusts the governor’s proposed expenditures to reflect revised estimates and assumptions; revises, supplements, or withdraws policy initiatives that were included in the  governor’s proposed budget  in January; and outlines adjustments to the minimum funding guarantee for K-14 education required by  Proposition 98 (1988) .

The rapid shift from a budget surplus, as was the case in recent fiscal years, to the budget shortfall we face today, is a lingering effect of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the economy. The projected budget shortfall is primarily the result of state revenue collections that the administration now projects are $11 billion lower over the three-year budget window (fiscal years 2022-23 through 2024-25) than was anticipated in the governor’s January proposal. The shortfall reflects the steep stock market decline in 2022 — after significant growth in 2020 and 2021 — that negatively impacted income tax collections from high-income Californians and corporations, as well as the economic dampening effects of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes.

Lower state revenues over the three-year budget window result in automatic adjustments to constitutionally-required funding allocations, including to the state’s main reserve and education reserve accounts, as well as reduced funding for K-12 schools and community colleges.

The governor’s proposed solutions to cover the shortfall would partially draw down on various state reserves . The solutions include using $12 billion enacted through legislative early action in April, however, just $3.1 billion would be used in 2024-25, and $8.9 billion would be shifted to 2025-26. The administration also proposes draining the Safety Net Reserve ($900 million), withdrawing $2.6 billion from the Public School System Stabilization Account for education, and leaving an estimated $22.9 billion for future use.

The administration’s proposals include billions in cuts, delays, and deferrals of critical investments intended to improve the health and well-being of all Californians. Reductions that will disproportionately affect the lives of low-income communities, Californians of color, Californians with disabilities, and families with children include, among others:

• Ongoing cuts to CalWORKs for supportive services, home visiting, and mental health/substance abuse services (despite draining the Safety Net Reserve intended to be used to avoid cuts to CalWORKs) and a one-time cut in employment services,
• Cuts to programs that help address homelessness and provide affordable housing,
• Indefinitely delaying further expanding child care slots, 
• Various reductions in investments in behavioral health, including cuts to infrastructure, housing, workforce, and youth behavioral health initiatives,
• Cuts in ongoing support for public health and one-time investments in the health workforce, 
• Cuts to services for Californians who are undocumented, including ongoing support for the expansion of In-Home Support Services (IHSS) and delayed expansion of the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP),  
• Pulling back investments in transitional kindergarten (T-K) facilities and pre-kindergarten (pre-K) inclusivity of students with disabilities.

The revised budget also continues to utilize a controversial accounting maneuver to shift $8.8 billion in K-12 schools and community college (K-14) costs  — on paper — from 2022-23 to later fiscal years and pay for these delayed expenses using non-K-14 funds. 

The May Revision proposals would protect and maintain some progress made in prior budget years to help improve economic security and opportunities for Californians with low incomes and Californians of color, including expanding full-scope Medi-Cal coverage to all Californians, maintaining investments in cash assistance through the CalEITC, Young Child Tax Credit, and Foster Youth Tax Credit, and temporary rate increases for child care providers.

However, state leaders have the tools and resources to prevent other harmful cuts. By further tapping into the state’s main rainy day fund and permanently reducing tax breaks for profitable corporations, state leaders can ensure corporations pay their fair share and avoid cuts to services that help Californians stay healthy, housed, and put food on the table.

This First Look report outlines key pieces of the May Revision to the 2024-25 California budget proposal, and explores how the governor prioritized spending and determined cuts to balance the budget amid a sizable projected state budget shortfall.

Budget Overview

Economic Outlook : Revised Budget Projects Moderate Job and Wage Growth Revenue : Revised Budget Reflects Additional $11 Billion Downgrade in Revenue Outlook Tax Policy : Modified Tax Proposals Include Temporary Business Tax Break Limitations Reserves : May Revision Includes Withdrawal of Reserve Funds, Proposes New Fund to House “Excess Revenue”

Coverage, Affordability & Access : Governor Upholds Medi-Cal Expansion, Amends MCO Tax, Proposes Harmful Cuts Health Workforce: Revised Budget Severely Cuts Health Care Workforce Development Behavioral Health : Behavioral Health Initiatives Mostly Sustained, But New Cuts Proposed Public Health : Cuts to Public Health Leave Californians Vulnerable to Future Threats

Homelessness & Housing

Homelessness : May Revision Reduces Limited Funding for Homelessness Housing : May Revision Proposes Deeper Cuts for Affordable Housing

Economic Security

Overview: May Revision Proposes Alarming Cuts to Vital Safety Nets Refundable Tax Credits : Revised Budget Maintains Tax Credits for Californians with Low Incomes Refundable Tax Credits: Revised Budget Does Not Implement Workers’ Tax Credit Slated for 2024 CalWORKs : May Revision Proposes Additional Cuts to Critical CalWORKs Support Services Food Assistance : Governor Proposes Cuts and Delays to Previous Food Assistance Commitments Child Care : Governor Maintains Temporary Rate Increase, Pauses Slot Expansion Californians with Disabilities : Governor Protects SSI/SSP but Cuts Key Services for People with Disabilities Immigrant Californians : Proposal Eliminates and Delays Vital Services for Immigrant Californians, Maintains Cut to Legal Services Domestic Violence : Governor Does Not Provide Needed Support to Domestic Violence Survivors

Early Learning & Pre-K : Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Continues While Facilities are Cut Proposition 98 : K-14 Education’s Minimum Funding Level Drops Due to Lower Revenue Estimates K-12 Education : Budget Proposal Relies on Reserves to Support K-12 School Funding Formula Community Colleges : Revised Budget Increases Reserve Withdrawals for Community Colleges Funding CSU/UC : Revised Proposal Maintains Deferrals for the CSU and UC Systems Student Financial Aid : May Revision Abandons Commitments to Expand Student Financial Aid

Justice System

State Corrections : May Revision Calls for Deactivating Prison Housing Units, but Not Prison Closures Retail Theft : Revised Budget Continues to Provide Over $100 Million to Address Retail Theft Proposition 47 Investments : Revised Budget Estimates Proposition 47 Savings of $95 Million for Local Investments

Workforce & Climate Change

Other/General Workforce : Governor Proposes Additional Cuts to Several Workforce Programs Climate Change : Revised Budget Proposes Further Cuts to Prior Environment Commitments

virtual event

How does the governor’s administration navigate and prioritize spending in the face of a challenging fiscal landscape?

Join us for this free, virtual event on May 22.

Revised Budget Projects Moderate Job and Wage Growth

The administration’s economic outlook projects trends in major economic indicators that affect state tax collections and revenues in the budget. The revised outlook projects steady, but slowing national economic growth into next year, with California job gains expected to remain relatively weak through 2025. The number of nonfarm jobs in the state is forecast to increase by just 0.1% in 2024 and 0.4% in 2025, following a stronger increase of 0.9% in 2023 and 1.5% in 2019, just before the pandemic. California’s unemployment rate is projected to remain relatively higher in the near term as well: 5.2% in 2024 and 5.3% in 2025, up from 4.7% in 2023 and 4.1% in 2019. Wages and incomes are also expected to grow more slowly this year and next than just prior to and coming out of the pandemic downturn. The revised budget does not project a recession in the near term, but does note that if inflation remains elevated, the Federal Reserve could maintain higher interest rates which could slow economic activity by more than projected. 

While the administration’s outlook is useful for understanding how economic conditions might impact budget revenues, it’s also important to consider how economic conditions are affecting Californians with low incomes, who count on programs and services funded by the budget. In March 2024, the majority of California households with incomes under $25,000 (55%) reported having difficulty paying for basic needs like food, housing, and medical expenses, according to the most recent US Census Pulse survey. Black, Latinx, and other Californians of color, as well as households with children were more likely to struggle paying for basic expenses. The Census data from March also show that 42% of Black households with children and 32% of Latinx households with children did not have enough to eat , compared to 15% of white households with children. Among all households with children, about one-quarter (24%) had insufficient food. In addition, the latest Census data show that California continues to have the highest poverty rate of the 50 states based on the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which provides a more accurate picture of poverty by accounting for differences in the cost of housing across communities. Housing costs in California typically exceed costs in the rest of the nation, and rents have risen sharply in many parts of the state in recent years making it difficult for Californians with low incomes to afford housing .

Revised Budget Reflects Additional $12.5 Billion Downgrade in Revenue Outlook

The governor’s revised proposal is based on an updated revenue estimate for the three-year budget window spanning fiscal years 2022-23 through 2024-25. After lower-than-expected tax collections since the governor’s January proposal, the administration now expects General Fund revenues to be about $12.5 billion lower over that window than the January estimate. This is before taking into account loans and transfers, the governor’s revenue proposals, and other budget solutions ( see Tax Proposals section ).

The administration continues to have a more optimistic revenue outlook than the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which recently projected that the three-year total of the “Big Three” General Fund revenues sources — personal income taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes, which together make up the majority of General Fund revenues — could be around $19 billion lower than the governor’s January projection.

After accounting for automatic spending changes resulting from the lower revenue estimate, the governor estimates that the downgraded revenue outlook results in a $7 billion addition to the three-year state deficit the governor identified in January. 

The administration expects state revenue growth to generally return to the pre-pandemic pattern after the dramatic spike in revenues during the pandemic as the stock market surged and then subsequently corrected.

Modified Tax Proposals Include Temporary Business Tax Break Limitations

In January, the governor proposed a modest package of revenue solutions that included limiting the extent to which businesses can use prior-year losses to offset their taxable profits (“Net Operating Loss carryforwards”), eliminating oil and gas tax subsidies, and other minor tax changes. These revenue proposals made up less than 1% of the total budget solutions proposed in January.

The May Revision modifies the January revenue-related proposals by:

• Replacing the previous Net Operating Loss proposal with temporary business tax benefit limits.
• Clarifying existing law for how some multinational corporations calculate their taxable income in California.

The updated proposal would suspend the use of Net Operating Losses for businesses with state income above $1 million, and limit total business tax credits that a business can use in a single year to $5 million. The tax credit limit would exclude Low-Income Housing Tax Credits as well as Pass-Through Entity Elective tax credits. These limitations would be in effect for up to three years, beginning with the 2025 tax year, and could be eliminated if the administration determines that the revenue situation has improved sufficiently by the 2025-26 May Revision. The administration estimates these limitations would raise revenues by $900 million in 2024-25 and $5.5 billion in 2025-26.

The administration expects this proposal to raise $216 million in the budget window.

While temporary limitations on businesses’ ability to reduce their state income taxes help to address the deficit in the short-term, the governor’s revised proposal does little to increase state revenues on an ongoing basis and misses key opportunities to make the state’s tax system more fair. Policymakers should consider permanent limitations on business tax credits — as some states already do — to ensure that businesses are not paying next to nothing in state income taxes when they turn large profits. State leaders should also explore other options to permanently increase state revenues by making the corporate tax system more fair and eliminating or reforming other costly and inequitable tax breaks , which are not regularly considered as part of the budget process.

May Revision Includes Withdrawal of Reserve Funds, Proposes New Fund to House “Excess Revenue”

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 Prop. 98 section ). In order to access the funds in the BSA and PSSSA, the governor must declare a budget emergency — an action that is not included in the May Revision or in the early budget action agreed to by the governor and Legislature in April, but will be necessary to access these funds.

The BSA and the PSSSA are not California’s only reserve funds. 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, the state has a Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU) — a reserve fund that accounts for unallocated General Fund dollars and that gives state leaders total discretion as to when and how they can use the available funds.

The current-year (2023-24) budget, enacted in mid-2023, projected $22.3 billion in the BSA; $10.8 billion in the PSSSA; $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve; and $3.8 billion in the SFEU. However, revenue adjustments in the current year result in updated 2023-24 projections in the governor’s proposed budget — $22.6 billion in the BSA; $2.6 billion in the PSSSA; $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve; and a shortfall of $843 million in the SFEU, which fluctuates throughout the year based on changes in revenues.

In April 2024, the governor and legislative leaders agreed to an early action budget package to partially address the state’s budget shortfall that included drawing down $12 billion from the BSA, a proposal that was also included in the governor’s January budget proposal.

The May Revision:

• Includes the $12 billion withdrawal from the BSA, but spreads the withdrawal over the next two fiscal years — utilizing only $3.1 billion in 2024-25 and shifting $8.9 billion to 2025-26. 
• Withdraws all $900 million from the Safety Net Reserve, despite also proposing significant cuts to the CalWORKs program, a program the reserve is designed to protect ( see CalWORKs section ).
• Withdraws $5.8 billion from the PSSSA in 2023-24 and the remaining $2.6 billion in 2024-25.
• Projects a 2024-25 year-end SFEU balance of $3.4 billion.

In total, the May Revision proposes to withdraw less from the state’s rainy day funds for 2024-25 than the governor’s January proposal, despite the fact that the administration projects that the budget shortfall has increased since January. Taking into account the remaining reserves in the BSA and the SFEU, the governor’s May Revision projects total remaining reserves of $22.9 billion at the end of 2024-25, compared to $18.4 billion in the governor’s January proposal. 

Given that the administration’s approach to resolving the state budget shortfall includes an array of harmful cuts to vital programs and services that help Californians with low incomes, communities of color, and Californians with disabilities, state leaders appear to have additional room to responsibly draw upon reserves to protect those programs and also leave funds available to address future fiscal uncertainties.

New Fund to Capture “Excess Revenue”

The May Revision also signaled the administration’s intent to enact legislation to enable state leaders to save more during future upswings in revenue by requiring the state to set aside a portion of anticipated “surplus” funds — funds that exceed a yet-to-be-determined standard for historical trends. The administration notes that the funds would not be able to be committed until revenues have been realized. 

While the specifics of the governor’s proposal are not yet available, any efforts to set aside additional funds would likely interact with other constitutional requirements that affect state spending and reserves, including Prop. 4 (1979; the “Gann Limit”), Prop. 98 (1988), and Prop. 2 (2014). For instance, the administration notes that amendments would be needed to Prop. 2 to allow for increased deposits to the BSA. Any amendments to the constitutional provisions, however, would need to be approved by California voters.

State Budget Reserves Explained

See our report, California’s State Budget Reserves Explained , to learn more about the savings accounts policymakers can use to support Californians in times of budget shortfalls.

Governor Upholds Medi-Cal Expansion, Amends MCO Tax, Proposes Harmful Cuts

Access to health care is necessary for everyone to be healthy and thrive. About 14.5 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 2024-25. Another 1.8 million Californians purchase health coverage through Covered California, the state’s health insurance marketplace. 

The May Revision maintains recent Medi-Cal expansions, but pulls back on other health care investments that were established in prior years. Specifically, the revised budget:

• Maintains the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented adults ages 26 to 49, but cuts $94.7 million to eliminate In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) for all undocumented Californians.
• Cuts $280 million for Equity and Practice Transformation Payments to Providers.
• Cuts $62 million from the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund intended to reduce cost-sharing in Covered California.
• Eliminates the Indian Health Grant Program.
• Freezes funding levels for county administration of Medi-Cal eligibility.
• Eliminates acupuncture as an optional Medi-Cal benefit for adults.
• Eliminates $2 million in ongoing General Fund for free clinics.
• Does not provide funding to reform the Medi-Cal Share of Cost program.
• Does not provide funding to implement continuous coverage for children from birth to age five.

These services help Californians with low incomes who are over the age of 65, blind, and/or disabled live with dignity in their own homes. Under this revised spending plan, about 14,000 Californians would lose access to IHSS solely due to their immigration status. This proposal is both harmful and xenophobic, potentially pushing immigrant families deeper into poverty. These cuts could also lead to increased state spending on nursing home care in the long run. State leaders should not compromise home care for thousands of Californians simply due to their immigration status.

These grants to certain Medi-Cal providers were intended to improve quality, health equity, behavioral health integration, and primary care infrastructure. The May Revision maintains $70 million General Fund expenditures included in the 2022 Budget Act.

These funds are critical for Californians who are uninsured and struggling to purchase coverage as well as for those who are insured but can’t afford to access the care they need.

This aims to improve the health status of American Indians living in urban, rural, and reservation or rancheria​ communities throughout California. The May Revision proposes to reduce $23 million annually beginning in 2024-25 to eliminate this program.

This reflects a reduction of $20.4 million in 2024-25 and ongoing. This reduction occurs at a time when counties are processing a high volume of renewals and many Californians are losing Medi-Cal coverage .

The estimated reduced General Fund cost for this cut is $5.4 million in 2024-25 and $13.1 million ongoing. Acupuncture is performed to prevent, modify or alleviate severe, persistent chronic pain resulting from a medical condition.

This provides primary care, preventive health care, and additional health services to medically underserved Californians.

This would alleviate financial burdens for many older adults and people with disabilities. Under the current Medi-Cal Share of Cost program, which forces many Californians to choose between paying for their health care, rent, food, or other basic needs. This reform was passed in the 2022 Budget Act but was subject to future appropriation. 

California was one of the first states to pass a policy that would ensure that children under age five can keep their Medi-Cal coverage without administrative renewals. Funding is needed to start the necessary steps to implement this policy change.

The May Revise also amends the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax revenue and expenditure proposal. The MCO tax is a provider tax imposed by states on health care services that essentially reduces, or offsets, state General Fund spending on Medi-Cal. The federal government approved the initial MCO tax proposal last year. In January, the administration proposed to increase the MCO tax and the May Revision proposes an additional amendment to the MCO tax to include health plan Medicare revenue, resulting in an additional $689.9 million in reduced General Fund costs in 2024-25, $950 million in 2025-26, and $1.3 billion in 2026-27. These changes would be subject to federal approval. Overall, the May Revision includes $9.7 billion in MCO tax funds over multiple years to support the Medi-Cal program. However, rather than using $6.7 billion of this amount to continue Medi-Cal provider rate increases, as originally planned, these funds will be used to offset General Fund spending. 

The May Revise does protect some health care investments that were established in prior years. Specifically, the budget:

• Sustains the ambitious Medi-Cal reform effort known as CalAIM (California Advancing and Innovating Medi-Cal).
• Maintains one-time $200 million ($100 million General Fund) in 2024-25 to support access to reproductive health services.
• Maintains commitment to eliminate the Medi-Cal asset test for seniors and people with a disability.

This was originally introduced in 2019. The main goal of this initiative is to better support millions of Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal — particularly those experiencing homelessness, children with complex medical conditions, children and youth in foster care, Californians involved with the justice system, and older adults — who often have to navigate multiple complex delivery systems to receive health-related services. Initial components of CalAIM launched in the beginning of 2022 and the remaining components will go live over the next several years.

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. Access to reproductive health services, including contraceptive care, sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment, obstetrical care, and abortion services, have a profound impact on the lives of women and pregnant people.

Specifically, the revised budget includes $112.2 million total funds ($56.1 million General Fund) in 2023-24 and $227.2 million total funds ($113.6 million General Fund) in 2024-25 for the elimination of the Medi-Cal asset test which became effective on January 1, 2024.

Lastly, the May Revision includes directed payments to children’s hospitals and public hospitals. This includes an annual allocation of $230 million to support children’s hospitals, with half of these funds provided by the federal government and the remaining half sourced from the Medi-Cal Provider Payment Reserve Fund. 

Revised Budget Severely Cuts Health Care Workforce Development

Access to health care services is important for everyone’s health and well-being. The state’s workforce must meet the needs of Californians to achieve equitable access to timely and culturally competent health services. While state policymakers have made considerable investments in recent years to bolster the health workforce, investments in various health workforce areas still fall short. 

Despite the clear need to invest in the health workforce, the May Revision cuts over $1 billion over multiple years. This includes:

• $854.6 million General Fund across five years for various health care workforce initiatives.
• $189.4 million Mental Health Services Act Fund for behavioral health workforce programs.

This includes community health workers, nursing, social work, primary care education and training, and efforts to increase the number of underrepresented individuals in health professions. The May Revision proposes to cut $300.9 million in 2023‑24, $302.7 million in 2024-25, $216 million in 2025‑26, $19 million in 2026-27, and $16 million in 2027‑28 for these initiatives.

These cuts impact the social work initiative, addiction psychiatry fellowships, university and college grants for behavioral health professionals, expanding Master of Social Work slots, and the local psychiatry behavioral health program overseen by the Health Care Access and Information Department.

The May Revision also modifies previous plans to enhance Medi-Cal provider participation under the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax proposal. While the revised budget maintains $727 million to increase provider rates for primary care, maternity care (including doulas), and non-specialty mental health services, it reallocates $6.7 billion previously intended for other health areas, including primary and specialty care in Medi-Cal, abortion and family planning access, clinics, and the Medi-Cal workforce pool. This redirection of funds towards existing Medi-Cal services is sensible in a budget deficit, but it raises concerns about the impact on timely access to health care services.

The health care workforce and access to health care services are intrinsically linked. If people cannot find a health care provider in their area or face extended wait times for an appointment, they do not have meaningful access to health care. State policymakers must continue to build a health care workforce that not only meets the needs of Californians but also mirrors the state’s diverse population in terms of race, ethnicity, sability, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Doing so will require sustained, ongoing investments, not cuts.

Behavioral Health Initiatives Mostly Sustained, But New Cuts Proposed

Millions of Californians who cope with behavioral health conditions — mental illness or substance use disorders — rely on services and supports that are primarily provided by California’s 58 counties. Improving California’s behavioral health system is critical to ensuring access to these services for all Californians, regardless of race, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, or county of residence. 

In recent years, state policymakers have launched various initiatives to transform California’s behavioral health system with the goal of improving access. Proposition 1 , the most recent of these initiatives, was approved earlier this year. Prop. 1 is a two-part measure that 1) amends California’s Mental Health Services Act and 2) creates a $6.38 billion general obligation bond to fund behavioral health treatment and residential facilities as well as supportive housing for veterans and Californians with behavioral health needs.

The May Revise includes some initial funding to begin Prop. 1 implementation, including:

• $126.9 million for the Department of Health Care Services in 2024-25.
• $85 million ($50 million General Fund) for county behavioral health departments.

Of this amount, $16.9 million is from the General Fund, $28.2 million is from the Behavioral Health Services Act Fund, $31.6 million is from the Opioid Settlement Fund, $10.4 million is from the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act, and $39.8 million is from the federal government.

This provides mental health and substance use disorder services to Californians through Medi-Cal and other programs.

In the governor’s January budget proposal and the revised budget proposal, the administration maintains funding to continue behavioral health initiatives that state leaders launched in recent years. For instance, the revised budget sustains the Behavioral Health Community-Based Organized Networks of Equitable Care and Treatment (BH-CONNECT) Demonstration , which aims to improve mental health services for Medi-Cal members. The administration assumes that implementation of BH-CONNECT will begin on January 1, 2025. Major reforms to the Medi-Cal program as well as the level of federal funding provided must be negotiated with the federal government through the Medicaid waiver process. As such, implementation will depend on the availability of funding and federal approval.

However, the revised budget also proposes a series of cuts and delays to other behavioral health initiatives. Specifically, the revised budget:

• Eliminates $450.7 million one-time from the last round of the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure (BHCIP) Program.
• Reduces funding and modifies the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative.
• Cuts $132.5 million in 2024-25 and $207.5 million in 2025-26 for the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program.
• Cuts $126.6 million ongoing General Fund for CalWORKs mental health and substance abuse services, effectively eliminating this service.
• Cuts $61 million General Fund in 2024-25 and ongoing for the Naloxone Distribution Project and Medication Assisted Treatment.
• Includes $27.2 million General Fund in 2023-24 and $37.8 million General Fund in 2024-25 for Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act.

This program provides competitive grants to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources. The May Revision proposes to reduce BHCIP funding by $70 million General Fund in 2024-25 and $380.7 million General Fund in 2025-26. While BHCIP will receive Prop. 1 bond funds, these funds are inadequate to address the overarching need for state investments. ( See homelessness section. )

The spending reductions — $72.3 million in 2023-24, $348.6 million in 2024-25, and $5 million in 2025-26 — impact school-linked health partnerships, various grant programs, a public education campaign, and a youth suicide reporting and crisis response pilot program. Of this amount, the administration notes that $140 million General Fund proposed in 2024-25 to support a platform is no longer needed. The revised budget does maintain $9.5 million ($4.1 million General Fund) in 2024-25 to establish a Wellness Coach benefit in Medi-Cal, which the administration proposed in January. Effective January 1, 2025, these coaches will offer wellness education, screening, support coordination, and crisis management services to children and youth in schools and other behavioral health settings.

This program aims to address the immediate housing and treatment needs of people with serious behavioral health conditions who are also experiencing unsheltered homelessness. The administration notes that $90 million in Behavioral Health Services Act funding would be provided in 2025-26, resulting in a net reduction of $117.5 million for that year. ( See homelessness section. )

California has led the way in expanding CalWORKs support services, recognizing families often need additional support, like mental health and substance use treatment, to improve their well-being and address barriers to work. ( See CalWORKs section. )

Naloxone is a life-saving medicine that reverses an opioid overdose and Medication Assisted Treatment is treatment for a substance use disorder that includes medications along with counseling and other support.

This is a plan to establish court-ordered treatment for people experiencing both homelessness and serious behavioral health challenges. The revised budget adjusts estimated county funding to align with recent trends in utilization. 

Investing in the state’s behavioral health system is crucial for supporting Californians who are coping with mental health conditions or substance use disorders. State leaders should continue to invest in the behavioral health system and address the behavioral health workforce shortage. Policymakers can also invest in efforts to make sure that the behavioral health workforce better reflects the diversity of all Californians, including their gender identities and sexual orientations.

Cuts to Public Health Leave Californians Vulnerable to Future Threats

Everyone should have the opportunity to be healthy and thrive. The California Department of Public Health as well as local public health departments are vital in protecting and promoting Californians’ health and well-being. From improving living conditions to promoting healthy lifestyles to responding to infectious disease emergencies, public health workers are essential.

Despite this important responsibility, funding has not kept pace with the cost of responding to ongoing and emerging health threats. Many Californians suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the state’s lack of preparedness. Communities of color experienced higher rates of illness and death due to historic and ongoing structural racism that deny many communities the opportunity to be healthy and thrive. Structural racism continues to underscore the need to address the root cause of health disparities through public health initiatives. 

In an alarming move, the governor’s revised budget proposes significant cuts to public health investments that were established in previous years. Specifically, the May Revision eliminates $52.5 million in 2023-24 and $300 million ongoing General Fund thereafter to improve public health infrastructure at the state and local level. Under this revised spending plan, local health jurisdictions would no longer continue to receive a minimum base allocation to support workforce expansion, data collection and integration, and partnerships with health care delivery systems and community-based organizations. At the state level, these cuts will reduce the capacity to assess and respond to current and emerging public health threats and will weaken key functions such as emergency preparedness and public health communications.

These cuts to public health capacities are short-sighted and harmful. After years of underinvestment in public health, these dollars provided much-needed infrastructure support. Given that public health emergencies and climate change disasters often disproportionately impact people with low incomes and communities of color, these cuts undo progress to advance health equity. State leaders should ensure that counties and cities have the capacity to address ongoing and future public health threats.

May Revision Reduces Limited Funding for Homelessness

Having a place to call home is core to living with dignity and health. Yet homeless service providers served over 330,000 Californians experiencing homelessness last year, underscoring both the need and increased capacity of the state’s response systems. Homelessness providers and localities are serving more individuals and families than ever before partially due to previous one-time state funding investments that provided critical resources for homelessness prevention and resolution services. Despite this, the May Revision proposes no new resources and reduces previous allocations, effectively leaving no significant state funding to address homelessness in 2024-25 or beyond. 

The May Revision proposes to eliminate $260 million in supplemental grant funds for the  Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant Program in 2025-26, but maintains the last round of funding in 2023-24. HHAP is critical as it provides local jurisdictions with flexible funds to address homelessness in their communities in a variety of ways, ranging from rental and operating subsidies to acquiring shelter, interim and permanent housing beds, and street outreach, among other uses. The May Revision also changes previously proposed funding delays into funding cuts for various homelessness programs that serve diverse populations.

These funding reductions include:

• A reduction of $132.5 million in 2024-25 and $207.5 million in 2025-26 for the Behavioral Health Bridge Housing Program.
• A reduction of $80 million General Fund for the Bringing Families Home Program.
• A reduction of $65 million General Fund for the Home Safe Program.
• A reduction of $50 million General Fund for the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program.

This leaves  $132.5 million General Fund in 2024-25 and $117.5 million ($90 million Mental Health Services Fund and $27.5 million General Fund) in 2025-26. These funds help provide immediate housing for people experiencing homelessness who have a serious mental illness or substance use disorder ( see Behavioral Health section ).

Appropriated in the 2022 Budget Act, which serves families involved in the child welfare system.

Appropriated in the 2022 Budget Act, which supports the safety and housing stability of individuals involved in Adult Protective Services.

Appropriated in the 2022 Budget Act, which assists people experiencing or at risk of homelessness to connect with disability benefits and housing supports.

Also notable is the increased reduction of $450.7 million one-time from the last round of the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP), leaving $30 million one-time General Fund in 2024-25. This program provides competitive grants to expand the community continuum of behavioral health treatment resources ranging from wellness centers to psychiatric care facilities. BHCIP will be receiving $4.4 billion in bond funds through Proposition 1 , which voters approved in March 2024. The Department of Health Care Services is anticipated to open funding applications this summer and begin granting competitive awards by the fall ( see Behavioral Health section ). Prop 1. also restructures funds from the Mental Health Services Act, which exists separately from the state budget. It now requires counties to redirect 30% of these funds for housing interventions for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness with behavioral health conditions. However, these funds are inadequate to address the overarching need for state investments, as they focus solely on a specific subset of unhoused Californians.

May Revision Proposes Deeper Cuts for Affordable Housing

All Californians deserve a safe, stable, and affordable place to call home. However, many are blocked from this opportunity due to California’s affordable housing shortage and accompanying high housing costs. Renters, people with low incomes, Black and Latinx Californians, and undocumented Californians are especially likely to struggle to afford their homes . Yet despite noting California’s serious housing affordability challenges, the May Revision proposes deeper funding reductions and scarce new investments to affordable housing programs.

The administration now proposes $1.7 billion in General Fund reductions for various programs that support affordable housing development and homeownership . The May Revision reductions build on those in the January proposed budget . These include:

• An additional reduction of $236.5 million General Fund for the Foreclosure Intervention Housing Preservation Program in 2023-24 , bringing the total reduction to $474 million, which will eliminate the program.
• An additional reduction of $75 million General Fund for the Multifamily Housing Program , bringing the total reduction to $325 million General Fund, eliminating state funding in 2023-24.
• A newly proposed reduction of $127.5 million General Fund for the Adaptive Reuse Program , with $87.5 million from the 2023 Budget Act and $40 million from the 2022 Budget Act, which will eliminate the program. 
• An additional reduction of $35 million General Fund for the Infill Infrastructure Grant Program , with $25 million from 2023 Budget Act and $10 million from the 2022 Budget Act, eliminating state funding in 2023-24.
• An additional reduction of $26.3 million General Fund for the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Program from the 2022 Budget Act. The January proposed budget already fully reduced allocated state funds for this program in 2023-24.

The May Revision does reinstate an additional $500 million for state Low Income Housing Tax Credits – as has been done since 2019 – which help promote and finance affordable housing development. The administration also highlights Proposition 1 , approved by voters in March, as providing some funding for supportive housing programs. Prop. 1 provides roughly $2 billion in bond funds for the development of permanent supportive housing units specifically for Californians experiencing or at risk of homelessness with behavioral health needs (see Homelessness and Behavioral Health sections). Over half of these funds are designated for veterans. The Department of Housing and Community Development is anticipated to open applications for this funding at the end of 2024. However, these funds are specifically for supportive housing units and fall short in providing the diverse critical investments needed to continue meaningful, affordable housing development in California.

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.

May Revision Proposes Alarming Cuts to Vital Safety Nets

While California has made significant investments in its social safety net in recent years, millions of people in communities across the state are still struggling to make ends meet as the cost of living continues to outpace incomes. Poverty, particularly among children and people of color, is on the rise. Despite this, the governor’s proposed budget includes very concerning cuts to vital safety net programs that may have devastating consequences for California families with the greatest needs. Cuts to the Department of Social Services, which administers the state’s safety net programs, total nearly $2 billion in the 2024-2025 fiscal year alone. These cuts target key investments in CalWORKs, food assistance, and child care. The budget proposal outright eliminates several critical support services for CalWORKs families, significantly reduces funding for program administration, and drains the dedicated reserves that were designed to protect the program from cuts.

Additionally, the proposal delays a long-awaited program expansion of food assistance to undocumented older adults and defunds a pilot to increase CalFresh benefits. In delaying and eliminating these vital services, which were small stepping stones to larger expansions that would close gaps in food insecurity across the state, the proposal would take California a step backward. In the child care space, the governor indefinitely delays his promised slot expansion despite the growing unmet need. Other cuts in this space would affect programs that serve foster youth and people with disabilities. 

California’s future largely depends on children whose entire lives will be shaped by the extent to which our state invests in their education, health, and well-being. But children cannot thrive unless their families thrive. Despite the budget shortfall, California’s leaders have a responsibility to ensure that our state’s children and families have the opportunity to reach their full potential.

Revised Budget Maintains Tax Credits for Californians with Low Incomes

California’s Earned Income Tax Credit (CalEITC), Young Child Tax Credit, and Foster Youth Tax Credit are refundable state income tax credits that provide tax refunds or reductions in state taxes owed to millions of Californians with low incomes, boosting their incomes and helping them to 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 maintains these tax credits in the revised budget while also continuing to cut funding for free tax preparation assistance, education, and outreach,  in half to $10 million in 2024-25, as proposed in January. These funds support community based organizations (CBOs) in their efforts to educate community members about state and federal refundable tax credits, connect eligible tax filers to free tax preparation services and assist tax filers in applying for or renewing Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, which some Californians must have in order to claim tax credits. Cutting this funding will reduce the capacity of CBOs to provide these services.

Revised Budget Does Not Implement Workers’ Tax Credit Slated for 2024

The 2022-23 budget included a new refundable tax credit for workers slated to become available in tax year 2024 if the Department of Finance determined that sufficient General Fund resources were available to support it. This credit was intended to help cover the cost of being a member of a labor union, particularly among workers with lower incomes who are typically excluded from an existing tax deduction for certain business expenses, including union dues. The administration does not include this new tax credit in the revised 2024-25 budget given the multi-year budget shortfall.

May Revision Proposes Additional Cuts to Critical CalWORKs Support Services

The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program is a critical component of California’s safety net for families with low incomes. The program helps over 650,000 children and their families, who are predominantly people of color, with modest cash grants, employment assistance, and critical supportive services. The governor’s May Revision proposes deeply concerning cuts to CalWORKs administrative and program funding in addition to the significant cuts proposed in January.

The newly proposed cuts include:

• A one-time reduction of $272 million in 2024-25 for employment services under the single allocation funding.
• An ongoing reduction of $126.6 million for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, effectively eliminating this service. 
• An ongoing reduction of $47.1 million for the Home Visiting Program, which is designed to support positive health, development, and well-being of CalWORKs families with children under 2.

This amounts to a total cut of $445.7 million. Adding on to the cuts proposed in January , which totaled about $293 million in FY 24-25, this brings the total to about $739 million in cuts to CalWORKs, two-thirds of which would be ongoing. For many years, California has led the way in expanding CalWORKs support services, recognizing families have diverse needs and often need additional support to address barriers to work and improve their well-being. Taking programs away that offer mental health support, crisis intervention (Family Stabilization Program), and parenting support (Home Visiting Program), which research has shown can reduce or prevent the effects of adverse experiences for children, could jeopardize families’ ability to meet all program requirements and maintain access to their grants. Families not meeting strict program requirements will be at risk of punitive sanctions, which will only push them deeper into poverty. 

In addition to the proposed cuts, the governor’s budget does not include funding to redirect collected child support payments from the state back to former CalWORKs parents. For formerly assisted families, outstanding child support debt that is collected does not go to the families but rather goes to the state, county, and federal governments as “reimbursement” for the costs associated with the CalWORKs program.  Under this change , which was supposed to go into effect in April 2024, these families would have received an estimated annual total pass-through of $187 million annually.

Additionally, the governor proposes drawing down the full $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve, which was created to maintain existing CalWORKs and Medi-Cal benefits and services during an economic downturn ( see Reserves section ). While the governor does not propose cutting cash grants, given the projections of a sustained deficit in upcoming years, fully drawing down the reserve will leave CalWORKs vulnerable to additional cuts, similar to what occurred during the Great Recession . Closing the budget shortfall at the expense of families with low incomes is a short-sighted approach that could have detrimental effects on California’s economy and families facing the greatest needs.

Governor Proposes Cuts and Delays to Previous Food Assistance Commitments

All Californians should be able to put enough food on the table without having to go without other basic needs. But about 1 in 11 California households — and 1 in 8 California households with children — sometimes or often didn’t have enough to eat in March 2024, according to recent US Census Household Pulse data. In recent years, households have been hit with both rising food prices as well as the expiration of enhanced pandemic-era food benefits . 

CalFresh — California’s version of the federally funded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — provides modest food assistance benefits to about 5.4 million Californians . The California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) is a state-funded program providing food benefits to certain non-citizens who are excluded from receiving federal  benefits, but undocumented immigrants are still excluded from CFAP benefits. The 2021-22 budget agreement included a plan to expand CFAP to Californians aged 55 and older who are excluded solely due to their immigration status. The expansion is currently set to begin in October 2025.

While the governor’s January budget proposal generally maintained prior commitments to  improve and expand the state’s food assistance programs, the May Revision proposes cuts and delays that would reverse or pause recent progress, including:

• Delaying the CFAP to include undocumented adults age 55 and older until 2027-28.
• Eliminating funding for the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot Program.
• Eliminating the Work Incentive Nutrition Supplement Program (WINS) beginning in 2025-26.

This means those older adults will continue to be excluded from vital food benefits for the next several years. The administration also has not put forth any plans to end this exclusion for undocumented Californians under age 55, even while 45% of undocumented Californians with low incomes are affected by food insecurity.

The 2023-24 budget created this pilot program and included $15 million one-time funding for 2024-25 to provide a state supplement to increase the minimum benefit for selected households to $50 for one year. This pilot program was a small step in acknowledging the inadequacy of the current minimum benefit of $23.

WINS is a $10 supplemental food benefit for some working CalFresh households. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that eliminating the program would reduce food benefits for around 125,000 households . The program is funded through CalWORKs but is only available for households not receiving regular CalWORKs benefits. The program was created with the primary goal of improving the CalWORKs Work Participation Rate (WPR), and it appears the proposal to eliminate WINS is a response to a recent federal law that would require the state to increase the supplement in order for it to continue helping the state achieve its WPR target, which could cost the state an additional $40 million each year. However, this elimination represents a loss of benefits for those households that rely on the additional assistance to keep food on the table, and the administration does not propose any relief for families to offset that loss.

Additionally, the budget does not include funding to implement Cal Grant reform, which would allow more college students to access CalFresh benefits ( see Financial Aid section ). The 2022 budget included a plan for Cal Grant reform, but it was subject to sufficient funds being available in 2024, so this was one of several “trigger” proposals included 2022 that will not be moving forward this year. Finally, the budget includes $63 million in additional funding to implement the universal school meals program to account for an expected increase in the number of meals to be provided and a cost-of-living increase ( see K-12 Education section ). The $63 million is in addition to the increase included in the January proposal.

Governor Maintains Temporary Rate Increase, Pauses Slot Expansion

Thousands of families in California rely on subsidized child care and development programs administered by the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) as a critical resource for supporting their families to grow and thrive. While the state has made improvements to California’s child care system — most recently through reforming family fees and committing to an alternative methodology for child care provider reimbursements — the system is still falling short for many families and child care providers. For example, as of 2022, only one in nine children eligible for subsidized child care received services, despite growing demand. Moreover, the state released data this year showing that 73% of family child care providers do not pay themselves a salary. The administration therefore has an opportunity to advance progress toward creating an equitable child care system that meets the needs of all families and reflects the integral role of child care providers.

The governor’s revised budget:

• Pauses planned child care slot expansion at 119,000 new spaces.
• Maintains commitment to one-time funding for temporary subsidy rate increases but lacks a detailed plan for meeting federal deadlines to implement an alternative rate structure.
• Cuts funding for foster youth child care programs and support services.
• Includes $972 million in cost shifts to help ensure that unspent federal relief dollars are not reverted.

  In 2021-22, the governor committed to adding approximately 200,000 new child care slots by 2026-27. As of 2023-24, approximately 146,000 new slots were funded. Expansion was paused in 2023-24, and the state is still in the process of rolling out all intended new slots. Specifically, only about 119,000 new slots have been added. The revised 2024-25 budget paused slot expansion at this 119,000  “until fiscal conditions allow for resuming the expansion.” These proposed actions result in a reduction of $489 million in 2024-25 and $951 million in 2025-26 for subsidized child care slots. The April 24, 2024 Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Human Services and Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 3 on Education Finance discussed the possibility of creating a “reversion account” that would keep unspent funds for slot expansion within child care. This reversion account to maintain unspent dollars within child care is not included in the 2024-25 revised budget.

The 2023-24 budget provided a total of nearly $1.4 billion in one-time funds for temporary rate increases for providers reimbursed through the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). The 2024-25 proposed budget maintains this one-time funding. This one-time funding is set to expire July 1, 2025, which is also the federal deadline determining the new rate structure, per the alternative methodology currently being developed. If the new provider rates are not determined by this deadline, they will revert back to the 2018 regional market rate or standard reimbursement rate. The administration remains committed to developing a single rate structure and alternative methodology for child care reimbursements. However, given the need for spending associated with the alternative methodology to be included in the 2025-26 budget process and Child Care Provider United union negotiations, the lack of a detailed plan (i.e., confirming a timeline for when state agencies produce cost estimates) makes the state more vulnerable to missing the federal deadline.

The Emergency Child Care Bridge Program for Foster Children (Bridge Program) is administered through CDSS. The Bridge Program provides time limited vouchers for child care and child care navigator services for foster care system families and parenting foster youth. The revised budget reduces funding for the Bridge Program, reflecting a reduction of $34.8 million in 2024-25 and $34.8 million in 2025-26. Additionally, the revised budget maintains proposed cuts to the Family Urgent Response System (FURS) by $30.1 million. FURS is a hotline for current or former foster youth and their caregivers to call and get immediate help for any issue they may be experiencing. 

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates that the state currently has $450 million of COVID-19 federal relief funds that may go unspent (set to expire September 30, 2024). Moreover, as of March 2024, the state had a Proposition 64 child care carryover balance of $296 million. The 2024-25 proposed budget plans to utilize all or a portion of these funds (among others) to offset General Fund costs for child care. Specifically, $596.8 will be shifted for 2023-24 and $375.5 will be shifted for 2024-25. This approach likely aligns with the LAO’s recommendation to minimize federal reversion of COVID-19 relief funds.

Governor Protects SSI/SSP but Cuts Key Services for People with Disabilities

All Californians should be included, supported, and treated with dignity in their communities, regardless of disability status. In California, people with disabilities can access several essential programs and services to manage their needs. The governor’s revised budget maintains a recent increase to the largest cash assistance program serving low-income Californians with disabilities, but builds on January’s proposed cuts and reduces support for key programs serving this population.

Specifically, the governor’s budget:

• Protects the recent grant increase to the State Supplementary Payment (SSP) program.

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and SSP programs together provide grants to over 1 million older adults with low incomes and people with disabilities to help them pay for housing, food, and other necessities. In recent years, state policymakers have made significant investments to increase SSP grants, however, the total grant levels remain below federal poverty levels. After deep cuts to the program during the Great Recession, grants cannot keep up with rising housing costs, making it difficult for low-income people with disabilities to make ends meet.

The governor’s January proposal included:

• Delaying, by one year, a scheduled raise for workers who care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
• A funding delay for the Preschool Inclusion Grant program.

The governor proposes to implement this wage increase for around 150,000 workers on July 1, 2025 — one year later than anticipated. This delay would allow the state to avoid $613 million in new state costs in the 2024-25 fiscal year, with these costs instead reflected in the 2025-26 budget. More than 460,000 Californians with intellectual and developmental disabilities — including children receiving early intervention services — are expected to receive supports and services in 2024-25. Delaying pay increases for workers who provide these services could exacerbate staffing shortages across the disability system. This, in turn, would make it more challenging for individuals with disabilities and their families to receive the services that the Lanterman Act requires the state to provide.

The January budget proposal included a delay of $10 million General Fund for this program, which had been delayed to 2024-25 in previous years. This delay essentially postpones its implementation to 2026-27. The Preschool Inclusion Grant program was created in the 2022-23 budget with the goal of supporting preschool programs to include more children with developmental disabilities. This program and proposed reductions are different from the enrollment requirements as part of the California State Preschool Program (see “preschool inclusivity” bullet below).

The May Revision maintains these delays in funding and also:

• Eliminates the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) expansion coverage to undocumented Californians of all ages by cutting $94.7 million ongoing.
• Cuts the planned expansion of preschool inclusivity.
• Cuts $65 million for the Home Safe Program.
• Cuts $50 million for the Housing and Disability Advocacy Program.
• Cuts $44.8 million for Adult Protective Services (APS).
• Does not include funding to reform the Medi-Cal Share of Cost program.

IHSS is a key health care program that helps older adults with low incomes and people with disabilities live safely and with dignity in their own homes. Under the revised spending plan, about 14,000 Californians would lose access to IHSS solely due to their immigration status ( see the Coverage, Affordability & Access section ) .

Currently, at least 5% of California State Preschool Program enrollment must be for students with disabilities. The administration had planned to increase this proportion to at least 10% by 2026-27. However, the 2024-25 proposed budget cuts funding for this increase, reflecting a one-time General Fund savings of $47.9 million in 2025-26 and $97.9 million General Fund ongoing starting in 2026-27 ( see the Early Learning section ) . 

A ppropriated in the 2022 Budget Act, which supports the safety and housing stability of individuals involved in Adult Protective Services ( see the Homelessness section ) .

Appropriated in the 2022 Budget Act, which assists people experiencing or at risk of homelessness connect with disability benefits and housing supports ( see the Homelessness section ) .

This provides abuse intervention and support services to older adults and dependent adults who are unable to meet their own needs. This cut targets a recent expansion effort to address California’s growing aging population, which may limit the program’s reach, particularly for more complex cases.

This would alleviate financial burdens for many older adults and people with disabilities. Under the current Medi-Cal Share of Cost program, many Californians have to live at the maintenance need level in exchange for Medi-Cal services, which forces many to choose between paying for their health care, rent, food, or other basic needs ( see the Coverage, Affordability & Access section ) .

Proposal Eliminates and Delays Vital Services for Immigrant Californians, Maintains Cut to Legal Services

Immigrants are an integral part of California’s communities. They are not just part of the state’s mighty economic engine as taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and members of the workforce — they enrich our cultural identity as the Golden State. They are students, teachers, artists, chefs, religious leaders, colleagues, neighbors, and family members. 

California has the largest share of immigrant residents of any state. Over half of all California workers are immigrants or children of immigrants, and nearly 2 million Californians are undocumented, according to recent estimates .

State leaders have made notable progress in recent years working toward a California for all, where all people have access to economic opportunity and essential services, regardless of immigration status. Extending full-scope Medi-Cal eligibility to undocumented Californians is one significant example of this, and the governor’s May Revision maintains the final and most recent step in this expansion, extending coverage to adults ages 26 to 49. However, the revised budget takes a step backwards by eliminating or delaying other vital services for undocumented Californians that other Californians can access. Specifically, the revised budget:

• Permanently eliminates In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) for all undocumented Californians.
• Delays expanding the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) to undocumented adults age 55 or older, as promised in last year’s budget.

These services help Californians with low incomes who are over the age of 65, blind, and/or disabled live with dignity in their own homes. This harmful and xenophobic cut will cause about 14,000 Californians to lose access to IHSS solely due to their immigration status, potentially pushing them deeper into poverty ( see Health Coverage section ).

Instead of beginning in October 2025, these vital food benefits will be delayed until 2027, denying hundreds of thousands of older Californians access to assistance at a time when 45% of undocumented Californians with low incomes are affected by food insecurity ( see Economic Security section ).

The revised budget also maintains the governor’s January budget proposal to cut immigration legal services, which are a lifeline for immigrant families. Specifically, the May Revision:

• Continues to permanently cut funding for the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) Services program , eliminating $10 million General Fund in 2023-24 and each year thereafter, zeroing out all resources for this program. 
• Continues to permanently cut funding for the California State University Legal Services program by $5.2 million General Fund in 2023-24 and each year thereafter.

Cutting support for immigrant legal services is harmful. These services are crucial for helping immigrants stabilize their lives and remain in their communities. Immigration legal services can help put immigrants on a pathway to stability , particularly for those without status. Without access to legal services, immigrants can face greater risks of deportation and family separation, which can lead to financial hardship for families and adverse health outcomes . Given that newly arriving immigrants have the potential to grow the economy and contribute to state and local coffers, supporting them is a strategic investment in our collective future. 

The governor’s May Revision also reduces $29 million for the Rapid Response program in 2024-25, which helps sustain humanitarian support to individuals and families seeking safety at the California-Mexico border in partnership with local providers. This reversion in funds comes out of the $79.4 million General Fund reappropriated for the Rapid Response program from the 2021-22 and 2022-23 budget acts to 2023-24 as part of the early action budget deal approved by policymakers in April. The revised budget proposes no additional state funding for this program in 2024-25 despite the glaring need for continued investment . 

Eliminating and delaying vital services to Californians simply due to their immigration status would have a significant negative impact on immigrant communities and our collective prosperity and is a short-sighted approach to closing the state’s budget shortfall.

Governor Does Not Provide Needed Support to Domestic Violence Survivors

Every Californian deserves to live in a world where they feel safe. However, millions of Californians experience domestic and sexual violence every year — women, transgender, and non-binary Californians, and some women of color are most likely to experience this type of violence. 

Domestic and sexual violence prevention programs are proven ways to stop the violence from occurring in the first place by taking a proactive approach and seeking to shift culture on racial and gender inequities. Since 2018, state policymakers have provided small, one-time grants for prevention programs, administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Besides funding for prevention services, the state also receives federal funding through the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) to help provide essential services to survivors of crime, including survivors of domestic violence. These funds help provide survivors with critical services like emergency shelter, counseling, and financial assistance. 

However, cuts to VOCA at the federal level are resulting in roughly a 45% cut to state grants for organizations that support survivors of crime, decimating the funding of many of these organizations who rely entirely on VOCA funding to provide these critical services. Additionally, the last round of prevention grants will run out at the end of 2024 . Prevention efforts take time, and organizations doing this critical work cannot commit to long term programming without permanent, ongoing funding.

In the May Revision, the governor:

• Does not provide funding to fill the gap in crime victim services funding.
• Does not provide continued funding for domestic violence prevention.
• Eliminates all funding for the cash assistance program for survivors.

In 2021-2022, the state stepped in and provided $100 million in one-time funding to backfill federal VOCA funding gaps. However, since 2019, funding has fallen far short of levels needed to maintain the services local organizations provide to more than 816,000 victims of crime. At the current funding levels, programs will have experienced a 67% cut in funding since 2019. While organizations are being forced to pause critical services to survivors of crime, the state continues to spend billions of dollars on prisons. The state could safely close up to five state prisons, which would result in savings of around $1 billion per year – some of which could be used to help support crime survivors ( see State Corrections section ).

While the 2023-24 budget extended state funding for domestic and sexual violence prevention grants, the governor does not propose any additional funding for new grants in the 2024-25 fiscal year, leaving many organizations uncertain as to how they will continue providing crucial services without funding.

In 2022-23, the state appropriated $50 million to establish the Flexible Assistance for Survivors (FAS) grant program. These dollars were meant to provide grants to community-based organizations to provide flexible assistance such as relocation, care costs, or other basic needs to survivors of crime. In January, the governor proposed delaying the $47.5 million program until 2025-26. However, the May Revision removes all state funding for the program, eliminating another support for survivors of crime.

While the governor has failed to include funding to support survivors of domestic and sexual violence among other crimes, a bipartisan group of Assemblymembers have issued an emergency budget request to address the VOCA funding shortfalls, recognizing the importance of protecting the state’s most vulnerable individuals. 

GUIDE TO THE STATE BUDGET PROCESS

See our report  Guide to the California State Budget Process  to learn more about the state budget and budget process.

Transitional Kindergarten Expansion Continues While Facilities are Cut

The California Department of Education (CDE) hosts two early learning and care programs: Transitional Kindergarten (TK) and the California State Preschool Program (CSPP). CSPP provides preschool to children ages 3 and 4 for families with low to moderate incomes. TK serves 4-year-olds, and eligibility is based on age alone in public schools and is not dependent on family income. Given the overlap with the child care and development programs administered through the California Department of Social Services, CSPP is included in recent family fee and rate reform wins (see Child Care section). However, as Universal TK continues to roll out and CDSS child care and development programs face cuts and delays, the administration has the opportunity to ensure that all early learning and care programs have the resources they need to prioritize family needs and early educator well-being. 

• Continues to fund the implementation of Universal TK expansion.
• Maintains CSPP slots and temporary reimbursement rate increases.
• Cuts the planned $550 million investment in preschool, TK, and full-day kindergarten facilities.

The initial year one expansion took effect during fiscal year 2022-23 and covered children whose fifth birthdays fell between September 2 and February 2 (the previous cut-off was December 2). The year two 2023-24 expansion provided eligibility to children who turn 5 between September 2 and April 2. The year three 2024-25 expansion will extend eligibility to children who turn 5 from April 2 to June 2. The revised budget includes $550 million from the General Fund for this year three expansion. As Universal TK continues to roll out, TK programmatic delays from 2023-24 are still relevant. Specifically, the following are delayed until 2025-26: 1) the reduction in TK classroom ratios to 1:10 and 2) the deadline for TK teachers to earn 24 units (or equivalent), a child development permit, or an early childhood education specialist credential.

The revised budget includes $1.4 billion in 2024-25 to maintain projected CSPP enrollment. As shared in the Child Care section , the 2023-24 enacted budget included one-time funding for temporary reimbursement rate increases and a commitment to developing an alternative methodology for provider rates. While this increase was negotiated by Child Care Providers United (CCPU) – representing home-based providers – the per-child temporary rate increase also applies to CSPP providers. Thus, the one-time funding promised for CSPP provider temporary rate increases is proposed to be maintained for 2024-25. Specifically, the revised budget includes $53.7 million from the General Fund to support reimbursement rate increases. Moreover, if the state does not determine the new rate structure by July 1, 2025, CSPP providers will also have their rates reverted to the 2018 standard reimbursement rate.

Facilities investments are intended to help build new school facilities or retrofit existing buildings in order to provide appropriate spaces for preschool, TK, and full-day kindergarten. The 2023-24 enacted budget reflected $550 million in 2024-25 to support this facilities program. This funding was delayed to 2025-26 in the January budget proposal. However, due to the projected budget shortfall, the dollars that were delayed to 2025-26 are now cut. The administration suggests that preschool, TK, and full-day kindergarten facilities could be added to an education bond proposal.

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 May Revision assumes a 2024-25 Prop. 98 funding level of $109.1 billion for K-14 education. Because the Prop. 98 guarantee tends to reflect changes in state General Fund revenues and estimates of General Fund revenue in the May Revision are lower than estimates in the January budget proposal, the governor’s revised spending plan assumes a decrease in the Prop. 98 guarantee in 2023-24 and 2022-23. Specifically, the May Revision assumes a 2023-24 Prop. 98 funding level of $102.6 billion, $3 billion lower than the $105.6 billion funding level assumed in the governor’s January budget proposal. The 2022-23 Prop. 98 funding level of $97.5 billion is roughly $800 million below the $98.3 billion funding level assumed in January, but it is $9.8 billion below the level assumed in the 2023-24 budget agreement – the largest decline in an estimated Prop. 98 guarantee for a prior-year since Prop. 98 was adopted. 

To address this unprecedented drop in the 2022-23 Prop. 98 guarantee, the governor’s May Revision proposes using the same complex accounting maneuver as the one he proposed in January: the revised budget plan attributes $8.8 billion in reduced Prop. 98 spending to the 2022-23 fiscal year, which would help reduce state General Fund spending to the lower revised Prop. 98 minimum funding level. However, the revised spending plan would not take away the $8.8 billion from K-12 schools and community colleges — dollars they received for 2022-23 that have largely been spent. Instead, the governor proposes to shift the $8.8 billion in K-14 education costs — on paper — from 2022-23 to later fiscal years and pay for these delayed expenses using non-Prop. 98 funds. 

The May Revision also reflects withdrawals of $5.8 billion in 2023-24 and $2.6 billion in 2024-25 from the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA) – the state budget reserve for K-12 schools and community colleges ( see Reserves section ). Because the revised 2023-24 PSSSA balance of $2.6 billion is not projected to exceed 3% of the total K-12 share of the Prop. 98 minimum funding level in 2023-24, current law would allow K-12 school districts to maintain more than 10% of their budgets in local reserves in 2024-25.

Budget Proposal Relies on Reserves to Support K-12 School Funding Formula

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 May Revision maintains the proposal made in his January budget to withdraw funds from the Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA) – the state budget reserve for K-12 schools and community colleges – to support the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), the state’s main K-12 education funding formula. Specifically, the governor’s revised spending plan:

• Allocates $7.5 billion from the PSSSA to support ongoing LCFF costs.
• Increases one-time funding for green school buses by roughly $395 million, for a total of approximately $895 million.
• Reduces K-12 school facilities funding by $375 million.
• Provides funding for a 1.07% COLA for non-LCFF programs and the LCFF Equity Multiplier.
• Increases funding for universal school meals by $63.3 million.
• Maintains $25 million in ongoing funding for literacy screening training.

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 May Revision includes a 1.07% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the LCFF. To pay for the additional ongoing costs, the proposal would withdraw $5.3 billion from the PSSSA to fund the LCFF in 2023-24 and $2.2 billion to fund the LCFF in 2024-25.

The May Revision sustains a commitment made in the 2023-24 budget agreement to support the greening of school bus fleets through programs operated by the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission in 2024-25. The governor’s proposal would increase 2024-25 funding for green school buses above the $500 million included in his January budget, but would reduce funding committed to the program to $105 million in 2025-26.

The 2022-23 budget agreement included an intention to allocate $875 million in one-time, non-Prop. 98 General Fund spending for the School Facility Program (SFP) to support K-12 facilities construction in 2024-25. The Legislature’s “early action” package approved the governor’s January budget proposal to reduce the 2024-25 SFP allocation by $500 million. The May Revision proposes to eliminate the remaining $375 million in 2024-25 SFP funding.

The governor’s January budget proposal included $65 million to fund a 0.76% COLA for the LCFF Equity Multiplier , established as part of the 2023-24 budget agreement, and for several categorical programs that remain outside of the LCFF, including special education, child nutrition, and American Indian Education Centers. The May Revision would increase ongoing funding to support these COLAs in 2024-25.

California established a Universal Meals Program in the 2022-23 school year that provides two free meals per day to any public K-12 student regardless of income eligibility. The governor’s January budget proposed $122.2 million to fully fund the program in 2024-25, and the May Revision proposes to increase this funding to pay for growth in the projected number of meals served and a COLA ( see Food Assistance section ) .

The 2023-24 budget agreement included a requirement for school districts to begin screening students in kindergarten through 2nd grade for risk of reading difficulties by the 2025-26 school year. The May Revision sustains the governor’s January budget proposal to provide funding to administer these literacy screenings.

Revised Budget Increases Reserve Withdrawals for Community Colleges Funding

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 more than 1.8 million students to transfer to four-year institutions or to obtain training and employment skills. 

The 2024-25 revised spending plan increases withdrawal amounts from the Prop. 98 reserve for CCC apportionments and provides additional resources to fund an increase in the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA). 

Specifically, the governor’s revised budget includes:

• Reserve withdrawals totaling $914.1 million from state budget reserves for CCC apportionments.
• A 1.07% COLA for apportionments and other programs.

The governor proposes a withdrawal of $381.6 million from the Prop. 98 reserve (also known as the Public School System Stabilization Account or PSSSA) ( see Reserves section ) in 2023-24 and $532.6 million in 2024-25 for the Student Centered Funding Formula (SCFF).

This includes $100.2 million ongoing Prop. 98 dollars for the SCFF. The revised spending plan also provides ongoing Prop. 98 resources to provide the same percentage COLA to other CCC categorical programs and the Adult Education Program.

Revised Proposal Maintains Deferrals for the CSU and UC Systems

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 nearly 460,000 students at 23 campuses, and the UC provides undergraduate, graduate, and professional education to more than 290,000 students across 10 campuses. 

The governor’s revised budget includes additional cuts to higher education and maintains funding deferrals for both of the state’s public university systems. 

The January proposal included:

• A deferral of $240 million General Fund dollars from 2024-25 to 2025-26 for the CSU.
• Deferrals totaling $259 million General Fund dollars from 2024-25 to 2025-26 for the UC.
• A reduction of $494 million in General Fund dollars for the California Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Program.

These dollars were meant to fulfill multi-year funding increases as part of the CSU compact. Under this proposal, the governor intends to restore this funding commitment in 2025-26, along with the scheduled base increase for the fourth year of the agreements. Additionally, the administration would also provide a one-time payment of $240 million in 2025-26 as part of the deferral.

This includes a deferral of $228 million for base increase as part of the multi-year compact with the UC and $31 million to support the UC in increasing the number of resident undergraduate students. In 2025-26, the governor intends to restore the $228 million on top of the increase scheduled for the fourth year of this compact and provide a total of$62 million for resident undergraduate enrollment, reflecting the deferred amount and that year’s increase for this purpose. The administration would also provide one-time payments of $228 million and $31 million to compensate for the deferrals in 2024-25 of the same amount.

The proposal pulls back $194 million in 2023-24 and $300 million in 2024-25. This program provides interest-free loans to campuses for new student housing projects.

The May Revision maintains these proposals and also include the following cuts in higher education:

• An ongoing reduction of nearly $14 million General Fund for the Proposition 56 General Fund backfill that supports Graduate Medical Education programs at the UC. 
• An ongoing cut of $13 million General Fund for the UC Labor Centers. This funding provides support for economic research and labor education across various UC campuses. 
• A reduction of $485 million General Fund of unspent one-time dollars for the Learning-Aligned Employment Program. The program provides resources for students at public colleges and universities to earn money while learning in a field related to their educational and career interests ( see Workforce section ).
• A $60 million General Fund cut for the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. This program provides awards to students in professional preparation programs and who are working toward a teaching credential. 

May Revision Abandons Commitments to Expand Student Financial Aid

The budget shortfall and proposed solutions significantly impacts access to financial aid opportunities for California students. The May Revision does not include funding for the anticipated reform to the Cal Grant program and reduces funding for the Middle Class Scholarship (MCS). 

Specifically, the revised spending plan:

• Does not trigger the Cal Grant Reform Act.
• Walks back expansion of the MCS.

Given the multi-year shortfall, the revised spending plan does not include funding for the Cal Grant Reform Act, which was included in the 2022-23 budget, and the governor does not propose any budgetary actions to phase in the program. Trailer bill language as part of the 2022-23 budget stated that the reform would become operative if General Fund dollars “over multi-year forecasts” are available beginning in 2024-25. The Cal Grant is California’s financial aid program for low-income students pursuing postsecondary education in the state. These grants support students by providing financial assistance so they can afford the costs of college attendance, including meeting their basic needs such as housing, food, transportation, and child care. The Cal Grant Reform Act would reach thousands of new students who were previously not eligible and would also allow more students to qualify for CalFresh food assistance, freeing up resources for institutions to support students with other non-tuition costs.

The May Revision proposes an ongoing cut to the MCS of $510 million . The revised spending plan also includes an additional spending reduction of more than $20 million, reflecting revised program estimates. These two actions reduce total spending for the program down to $100 million ongoing, reflecting an 88% drop from the 2023-24 total funding level. The May Revision also maintains the January proposal to abandon a planned one-time investment of $289 million that was included as part of the 2023-24 budget. The state created the MCS program in 2013-14 to provide partial tuition coverage to CSU and UC students who were not eligible for Cal Grants. The program was revamped in 2022-23 by increasing funding and implementing new rules. Due to these changes, a broader group of students received the awards. Eligible students include those who qualify based on income (maximum household income is $217,000), low-income students who qualify through other requirements, and community college students in bachelor’s degree programs.

Overall, these budget choices have consequences for college affordability, degree attainment, and overall student well-being. Students pursuing postsecondary education confront significant hardship to afford basic necessities , and they are often forced to make difficult decisions that impact their college experience and degree completion .

May Revision Calls for Deactivating Prison Housing Units, but Not Prison Closures

More than 93,000 adults who have been convicted of a felony offense are serving their sentences at the state level , down from a peak of 173,600 in 2007. This sizable drop in incarceration is largely due to justice system reforms adopted since the late 2000s, including Proposition 47 , which California voters passed with nearly 60% support in 2014 . Despite this substantial progress, American Indian, Black, and Latinx Californians are disproportionately represented in state prisons — a racial disparity that reflects racist practices in the justice system as well as structural disadvantages faced by communities of color.

Among all incarcerated adults, most — about 90,000 — are housed in state prisons designed to hold roughly 75,500 people. This overcrowding equals 119% 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 around 3,000 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.

• Calls for deactivating 46 housing units across 13 state prisons, for ongoing annual state savings of around $80 million.
• Fails to advance a plan to close state prisons.
• Proposes deep cuts to the Adult Reentry Grant (ARG) program.

The housing units proposed for deactivation contain roughly 4,600 beds. However, the state prison system currently operates with about 15,000 empty beds . Moreover, closing housing blocks rather than entire prisons saves the state less money because ongoing operational and staffing costs are higher when prisons remain open. For example, while the governor’s proposal would reduce state costs by around $80 million per year, the state would save around $200 million per year for every prison it closes. Given California’s challenging fiscal outlook, state leaders should be exploring ways to significantly reduce spending on prisons in order to ensure the wise use of state tax dollars and maximize state savings.

In recent years, California has ended the use of private prisons and shut down three state prisons. State leaders can — and should — go further. In fact, due to the large number of empty prison beds, the state could safely close up to five additional prisons, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office . Closing five more state prisons would save around $1 billion per year — dollars that could be redirected to help incarcerated individuals successfully transition back to their communities as well as support crime survivors, reduce poverty, increase housing stability, and address substance use and mental health issues. Unfortunately, the May Revision fails to advance a plan to close more prisons, with the governor instead focusing on deactivating selected prison housing units for far less state savings.

Community-based organizations use ARG funds to help formerly incarcerated people successfully transition back to their communities. In January, the governor proposed to cut $7.8 million in unspent ARG funds from 2022-23 as well as to delay $57 million in ARG funds budgeted for 2024-25 to the next three fiscal years (2025-26 to 2027-28 — providing $19 million per year). The May Revision maintains the $7.8 million cut and also proposes two significant reductions: 1) eliminate (rather than delay) the $57 million budgeted for 2024-25 and 2) cut $54.1 million in ARG funds budgeted for 2023-24. The governor’s proposal represents a major step back from recent efforts to ensure that people released from prison are prepared to successfully reenter their communities.

Revised Budget Continues to Provide Over $100 Million to Address Retail Theft

Retail theft  is defined in several ways  in California law:

• Shoplifting
• Commercial burglary
• Organized retail theft

Shoplifting occurs when the value of stolen goods is $950 or less (petty theft) — a limit set by Proposition 47 of 2014 . Shoplifting is generally a misdemeanor, but may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony if the defendant was previously convicted of certain severe crimes or is required to register as a sex offender.

Commercial burglary covers higher-value retail theft (grand theft) and can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony.

Organized retail theft , a specific type of theft created by the Legislature in 2018 , is punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

Robbery , a felony, occurs when force or a threat of force is involved. “Smash and grab” incidents are prominent examples of robberies affecting retail businesses.

Retail theft rose following the isolation and social breakdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In California, commercial burglary and robbery rates continued to exceed their pre-pandemic (2019) levels as of 2022, the most recent year for which statewide data are available. In contrast, California’s statewide shoplifting rate remains below the 2019 level despite a recent increase.

In January, Governor Newsom proposed to provide $119 million in 2024-25 to address organized retail theft and other crimes. This was the same amount of General Fund support provided in the current fiscal year (2023-24) despite the large budget shortfall the state is facing.

The May Revision modestly reduces the total funding level from $119 million to $115.4 million. This reflects a $3.6 million cut to the Vertical Prosecution Grant Program, which would see its funding reduced from $10 million to $6.4 million in 2024-25. The governor does not propose cuts in 2024-25 to other components of his organized retail theft package, which includes $85 million for local law enforcement agencies and $24 million for state-level task forces and prosecution teams.

Revised Budget Estimates Proposition 47 Savings of $95 Million for Local Investments

Overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2014, Prop. 47 reduced penalties for six nonviolent drug and property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Consequently, state prison generally is no longer a sentencing option for these crimes. Instead, individuals convicted of a Prop. 47 offense serve their sentence in county jail and/or receive probation.

By decreasing state-level incarceration, Prop. 47 reduced the cost of the prison system relative to the expected cost if Prop. 47 had not been approved by voters. The Department of Finance is required to annually calculate these state savings, which are deposited into the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund and used as follows:

• 65% for behavioral health services — which includes mental health services and substance use treatment — as well as diversion programs for individuals who have been arrested, charged, or convicted of crimes. These funds are distributed as competitive grants administered by the Board of State and Community Corrections.
• 25% for K-12 school programs to support vulnerable youth. These funds are distributed as competitive grants administered by the California Department of Education.
• 10% to trauma recovery services for crime victims. These funds are distributed as competitive grants administered by the California Victim Compensation Board.

As of the 2023 Budget Act, the state has allocated roughly $720 million in savings attributable to Prop. 47 — funds that have been invested in local programs that support healing and keep communities safe. For example, a recent evaluation shows that people who received Prop. 47-funded behavioral health services and/or participated in diversion programs were much less likely to be convicted of a new crime. Specifically, individuals enrolled in these programs had a recidivism rate of just 15.3% — two to three times lower than is typical for people who have served prison sentences (recidivism rates range from 35% to 45% for these individuals).

The May Revision estimates that Prop. 47 has generated an additional $94.8 million in state savings due to reduced state-level incarceration. These dollars will be allocated through the 2024 Budget Act, increasing Prop. 47’s total investment in California’s communities to more than $800 million since these savings were first allocated through the 2016 Budget Act.

Governor Proposes Additional Cuts to Several Workforce Programs

The revised budget proposes to cut spending on several workforce development programs to help address the multi-year budget problem. ( See Health Workforce section. ) Specific cuts include:

• $50 million General Fund in 2024-25 and 2025-26 to California Jobs First (formerly called the Community Economic Resilience Fund).
• $20 million General Fund in 2024-25 to the California Youth Leadership Corp
• $20 million General Fund in 2025-26 to the Apprenticeship Innovation Fund at the Department of Industrial Relations.
• $10 million General Fund ongoing for the Women in Construction Unit at the Department of Industrial Relations.
• $10 million General Fund in 2025-26 for the Department of Industrial Relations’ California Youth Apprenticeship Program.

This program is an inter-agency partnership that supports strategies to diversify local economies and develop sustainable industries that create high-quality, broadly accessible jobs.

This is an initiative of the Workforce Development Agency, certain community colleges, and non-profit organizations that prepares historically marginalized youth to become community organizers and change agents in their local communities.

This is in addition to the $40 million General Fund delay in 2024-25 that was included in the governor’s January budget.

This aims to increase opportunities in the construction industry for women, non-binary, and underserved communities.

This provides apprenticeships for youth ages 16 to 24. This cut is in addition to the $25 million General Fund spending delay in 2024-25 that was included in the governor’s January budget.

In addition, the revised budget cuts $485 million General Fund in unspent one-time funds for the Learning-Aligned Employment Program in 2022-23. This program places eligible students at public colleges and universities in employment opportunities related to their area of study or career objectives. ( See higher education sections .)

Revised Budget Proposes Further Cuts to Prior Environment Commitments

Californians across the state have increasingly seen the effects of climate change through devastating fires, droughts, and floods, but communities of color and low-income communities are often hit hardest by these catastrophes due to historical and ongoing displacement and underinvestment. Additionally, these communities are more likely to be exposed to environmental pollutants for the same reasons. 

Significant investments in climate resilience were made through recent years’ budgets. Most of the commitments were one-time investments intended to be made across several years, so there are significant unspent funds remaining. In January, the governor proposed budget solutions that included $2.9 billion in reductions and $1.9 billion in delays of climate investments committed in previous budget agreements. Several of these proposals were included, or partially included in the early action agreement between the governor and the Legislature.

The May Revision proposes around $1 billion in additional reductions to climate and environment programs for 2022-23 as well as further reductions to planned spending beyond the current budget window. Reductions are proposed in areas including but not limited to clean energy and transportation, water and drought resilience, and wildfire resilience.

Significant new reductions that may disproportionately impact low-income and under-resourced communities include:

• $399 million for the Active Transportation Program across 2025-26 and 2026-27 ($300 million in 2025-26 and $99 million in 2026-27).
• $268.5 million for the Cleanup in Vulnerable Communities Initiative ($136 million in 2023-24, $85 million in 2025-26, and $47.5 million in 2026-27).
• $140 million for the Equitable Building Decarbonization program across 2024-25 and 2025-26 ($53 million in 2024-25 and $87 million in 2025-26).

This program supports walking and biking options with the goals of improving safety and mobility and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Transportation Commission notes that 85% of funds committed have gone to projects benefiting disadvantaged communities.

The initiative was created in 2021 and committed $500 million across four years to clean up hazardous waste sites in communities subject to environmental hazards.

This program provides funds for 1) energy retrofits for low and moderate income households and 2) incentives for the adoption of energy efficient technologies, at least half of which must benefit under-resourced communities. This appears to be in addition to the $286 million proposed reduction across several years included in the January proposal.

You may also be interested in the following resources:

Governor newsom proposes harmful cuts, policymakers have alternatives, guide to the california state budget process, stay in the know..

Join our email list!

Thanks for signing up!

There was a problem processing your signup. Please try again. Or contact us

Please check your email to confirm your signup.

Webinar: Examining Governor Newsom’s May Revision

Join us on Wednesday, May 22, at 11 a.m. as Budget Center experts explore how the governor responds to fiscal challenges and provide an overview of the state budget process.