Republish
California’s list of failed tech projects just added an agency
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California’s list of failed tech projects just added an agency
Share this:
While twiddling his thumbs in the powerless office of lieutenant governor 12 years ago, Gavin Newsom wrote a book titled “Citizenville,” touting information technology to improve governance.
California would seem to be the perfect place for governmental technology to be employed, given its seminal role in the global technological revolution.
When the book was published, the state had already launched several major programs to upgrade early generation technology and create new applications. Newsom inherited them when he became governor in 2019.
Sadly, the state’s efforts to incorporate cutting-edge technology have seen mediocre success at best, and in some cases outright failure.
The state’s most ambitious effort, the Financial Information System for California, or FI$Cal for short, has been a poster child for very expensive, much delayed and only partially implemented technology.
Launched in 2005, FI$Cal was to replace multiple outdated systems and become a one-stop application for managing state government finances.
Two decades later, about a billion dollars has been spent and some state agencies have been incorporated into the system, but complete deployment is not scheduled until 2032.
“The project office will not complete the project by its scheduled end date of June 2022,” a 2022 report from the state auditor’s office declared, citing a lack of staff and other impediments.
“Even when the project office officially declares the project done,” the audit continued, “it will not have implemented all promised functionality, and doing so will likely incur significant expense.
“As we described in our two most recent reports, the project office postponed the development of some features, thus reducing the number of key features the system will have when the project formally ends.”
A followup auditor’s report issued last November found some progress toward completion but noted that some of the state’s “largest and most complex” departments remain to be hooked into the system, “and their transition to FI$Cal must be complete by July 1, 2032.”
The most important chore to be completed is the incorporation of the state’s “book of record,” its official report on financial matters.
FI$Cal is just one of the state’s information technology projects that have proceeded slowly, partially or failed altogether.
Read Next
How California court system wasted millions
The state Judicial Council, which manages the statewide court system, spent more than half a billion dollars on a case management system only to abandon it because no one could make it work.
When local court managers switched back to paper systems after the failure, some tried to bar news organizations from easily accessing records, particularly new lawsuits, but Courthouse News sued and eventually won, forcing the Judicial Council to pay the media outlet $2.9 million for its legal costs.
California now has another agency on its list of technology failures — the State Bar, which licenses lawyers.
Facing a $22.2 million budget deficit, the State Bar decided to cut the expenses of testing would-be attorneys and use a new system of in-person and remote testing via computer. It hired Kaplan Exam Services to devise test questions and Meazure Learning to conduct the exam.
“The result was a disaster for many test takers,” the Los Angeles Times recently wrote. “Some reported they were kicked off the online testing platforms; experienced screens that lagged and displayed error messages; and had proctors who could not answer basic questions. Others raised issues with the multiple-choice test questions, complaining they consisted of nonsense questions, had typos and left out important facts.”
In addition to the technological glitches, there were errors and omissions in the test questions, leading the California Supreme Court to order that the State Bar exams in July be conducted the old way.
And, of course, there is voluminous finger-pointing over who, if anyone, will be held accountable.
Read More
California is late on its own financial health report for the 6th straight year
Could AI reject your resume? California tries to prevent a new kind of discrimination
Dan WaltersOpinion Columnist
Dan Walters is one of most decorated and widely syndicated columnists in California history, authoring a column four times a week that offers his view and analysis of the state’s political, economic,... More by Dan Walters