Government Efficiency

How DoT Would Improve CDOT

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the current offices and how a future Department of Technology would consolidate the California Department of Technology’s structure for greater efficiency, accountability, and public transparency.

California Department of Technology — Proposed Consolidated Offices

Administration & Strategic Planning (2)

Communications & Legislative Affairs (2)

Digital Infrastructure & Broadband (2)

Technology Services & Professional Dev. (2)

Digital Services & Enterprise Architecture (2)

IT Project Delivery & Support (1)

Information Security (1)

Office Consolidation Comparison

Current Offices	Proposed Consolidated Offices
Administrative Services	Office of Administration and Strategic Planning
Statewide Policy and Strategic Planning	Office of Administration and Strategic Planning
Communications	Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs
Legislation	Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs
Broadband and Digital Literacy	Office of Digital Infrastructure and Broadband
Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative	Office of Digital Infrastructure and Broadband
Technology Services (OTech)	Office of Technology Services and Professional Development
Office of Professional Development	Office of Technology Services and Professional Development
Office of Digital Services	Office of Digital Services and Enterprise Architecture
Office of Enterprise Architecture	Office of Digital Services and Enterprise Architecture
Statewide Project Delivery	Office of IT Project Delivery and Support
Information Security	Office of Information Security

Benefits of Consolidation

Ethical Technology Uses: Centralized offices for policy, strategic planning, and digital services foster ethical standards and innovative solutions.

Enhanced Reliability: By grouping related functions, the structure supports better coordination and resource sharing across divisions.

Improved Cybersecurity: A dedicated Office of Information Security focuses solely on protecting state information assets without competing priorities.

Increased Public Access and Transparency: Consolidating communications and legislative affairs enhances public engagement and simplifies legislative coordination.

Greater Accountability: Streamlined administrative and strategic planning functions ensure clearer lines of responsibility and oversight.

Efficiency Gains: Reducing redundancy and optimizing resources across offices improves operational efficiency and reduces taxpayer cost.

Recommended Leadership Consolidations

The following deputy director roles show the greatest potential for consolidation based on functional overlap:

Deputy Director of Communications & Stakeholder Relations — This role could be merged with the Deputy Director of Strategic Initiatives to centralize communications and strategic planning under a single leadership position.
Deputy Director of Legislation — Legislative responsibilities could be absorbed into a broader strategic role under the Chief Administrative Officer, eliminating a redundant deputy director position.
Deputy Director of Broadband and Digital Literacy — Consolidate with the Deputy Director of Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative for a unified, coherent broadband strategy rather than two parallel offices pursuing similar goals.

These changes could meaningfully improve coordination while reducing administrative overhead and redundancy.

Additional Reading

The following California State Auditor report provides detailed independent analysis of the current California Department of Technology structure and is recommended background reading for this consolidation proposal:

PDF

California State Auditor — Report 2022-114
California Department of Technology Performance Audit

View Report →

For current executive structure information, visit the California Department of Technology Executives page.

January 1, 2025

How our Department of Technology Could Save California Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

Potential Consolidation List

Here’s a list of potential technology-related offices and agencies in California that could be consolidated or streamlined as advocated for by a Department of Technology (DoT):

California Department of Technology (CDT)

Manages the state’s IT infrastructure, cybersecurity, and digital services.

California Office of Digital Innovation (ODI)

Focuses on improving state government digital services and user experiences.

California Department of General Services, Office of Information Security (OIS)

Responsible for cybersecurity policies, standards, and oversight across state agencies.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Research, Innovation, and System Information (DRISI)

Involved in technology-related transportation projects, including smart traffic systems.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) – Communications Division

Oversees telecommunication services, broadband deployment, and other technology-related regulatory functions.

California Energy Commission (CEC) – Energy Research and Development Division

Focuses on advancing energy technologies, including smart grids and renewable energy innovations.

California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) – Information Systems Division

Manages DMV’s technology infrastructure, including online services and digital data management.

California Secretary of State – Information Technology Division

Handles the state’s election technology, digital archives, and online services.

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) – Technology Operations Division

Manages emergency response technology and communication systems, including public safety communications.

California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) – Technology Services Division

Manages health-related IT services, including electronic health records and telehealth infrastructure.

California Department of Education – Technology Services Division

Oversees technology integration in schools, including digital learning tools and infrastructure.

California Department of Justice (DOJ) – Bureau of Forensic Services (BFS) – Cybersecurity and Technology Programs

Manages cybersecurity and digital forensic services for law enforcement.

California State Library – Library Development Services (LDS) – Digital Initiatives

Focuses on expanding access to digital resources and technology in libraries across the state.

California Department of Social Services (CDSS) – Information Technology Services Division (ITSD)

Manages the technology infrastructure supporting social services, including digital benefit programs.

California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) – Technology Services Division

Handles tax-related technology services, including online tax filing and data security.

California Employment Development Department (EDD) – Information Technology Branch (ITB)

Manages unemployment insurance and workforce technology systems.

California Air Resources Board (CARB) – Information Services Branch

Supports environmental technology, including systems for monitoring air quality and emissions.

California Water Resources Control Board – Information Technology Division

Manages technology for water quality monitoring, data management, and reporting systems.

More Examples

Here’s a list of additional examples of states and governments that have successfully consolidated or streamlined their technology operations, similar to New York and Michigan:

Certainly! Here’s the rewritten content with URLs for the respective government offices:

Texas: The Texas Department of Information Resources (DIR) [https://dir.texas.gov/] undertook a data center consolidation initiative that resulted in significant cost savings and improved cybersecurity across state agencies. The project has been lauded for reducing the state’s IT footprint and enhancing the efficiency of government operations.

Ohio: Ohio’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) [https://it.ohio.gov/] initiated the Ohio IT Optimization program, which focused on consolidating IT services across state agencies. This initiative led to cost reductions, improved service delivery, and enhanced security through centralized management.

Virginia: The Virginia Information Technologies Agency (VITA) [https://www.vita.virginia.gov/] was established to centralize IT services and infrastructure across state agencies. Through consolidation, VITA has achieved substantial savings and improved the overall reliability and security of the state’s IT systems.

Colorado: Colorado consolidated its IT services under the Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) [https://oit.colorado.gov/]. The state has reported cost savings and increased efficiency as a result of this centralization, particularly in areas such as procurement, infrastructure, and service delivery.

Indiana: Indiana created the Indiana Office of Technology (IOT) [https://www.in.gov/iot/] to centralize and streamline IT services for state agencies. The consolidation has resulted in cost savings and improved IT governance, including better cybersecurity and standardized service delivery.

Illinois: Illinois established the Department of Innovation & Technology (DoIT) [https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/doit/] to centralize and modernize the state’s IT infrastructure. The consolidation efforts have led to significant cost savings, enhanced security, and better coordination across state agencies.

Georgia: Georgia implemented the Georgia Enterprise Technology Services (GETS) program [https://gta.georgia.gov/programs-services/gets] to consolidate and modernize IT services. The state has seen cost reductions, improved service quality, and strengthened cybersecurity as a result of the centralization.

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania’s Office of Administration, Office for Information Technology (OA-OIT) [https://www.oa.pa.gov/Programs/Pages/IT.aspx] has led initiatives to consolidate IT services across state agencies. These efforts have resulted in cost savings, improved efficiency, and better IT management.

North Carolina: North Carolina created the Department of Information Technology (NCDIT) [https://it.nc.gov/] to centralize IT services across state agencies. The consolidation has led to cost savings, improved service delivery, and enhanced cybersecurity.

Minnesota: Minnesota IT Services (MNIT) [https://mn.gov/mnit/] was formed to centralize and streamline IT operations across the state’s government. The consolidation has helped the state reduce costs, improve service delivery, and strengthen cybersecurity.

These examples demonstrate that many states have recognized the benefits of consolidating technology services under a unified structure, leading to significant cost savings, improved efficiency, and enhanced security. California could draw from these examples as it considers the potential advantages of establishing its own unified Department of Technology.

In an era where technology is at the forefront of every aspect of governance, the idea of consolidating California’s various technology-related offices and agencies under a unified Department of Technology (DoT) is gaining traction. Advocates argue that such a move could not only enhance efficiency and security but also result in substantial cost savings for the state. But just how much money could be saved? Let’s explore.

The Case for Consolidation

California is home to numerous technology-related agencies and offices, each with its own administrative overhead, procurement processes, IT infrastructure, and operational systems. These agencies manage everything from cybersecurity and digital services to health records, transportation systems, and environmental monitoring. While each agency plays a crucial role in the state’s operations, the fragmented nature of their work leads to redundancies, inefficiencies, and higher costs.

Potential Savings

Administrative Overheads:
One of the most significant areas where savings could be realized is in reducing administrative overhead. By consolidating the various agencies into a single Department of Technology, the state could eliminate duplicative administrative functions, such as human resources, finance, and legal departments. This could lead to savings on salaries, office space, and other overhead costs.
Technology Procurement:
Currently, each agency negotiates its own contracts with vendors, often leading to higher prices due to a lack of economies of scale. A centralized procurement process under a unified DoT could leverage bulk purchasing discounts, streamline vendor management, and reduce costs through standardized contracts. This alone could result in significant savings.
IT Infrastructure:
Another area ripe for savings is the state’s IT infrastructure. Consolidating data centers, optimizing networks, and unifying cloud services could reduce the number of systems that need to be maintained and upgraded. This would lower operational costs, including those associated with cybersecurity and maintenance.
Operational Efficiency:
By harmonizing IT systems and eliminating redundant programs, the state could improve its operational efficiency. Standardizing processes and technologies across all agencies would reduce the complexity and cost of maintaining different systems. This could lead to savings of 10-30% of current operational costs.
Personnel:
While some positions might become redundant, leading to potential workforce reductions or reassignments, the state could save a considerable amount on salaries and benefits. The reallocation of staff to areas where they are most needed would also contribute to more efficient operations.

Real-World Examples of Savings

Other governments that have undertaken similar consolidations provide a glimpse into the potential savings California could achieve:

Federal Level: The U.S. federal government, through its data center consolidation efforts, estimated savings of nearly $3 billion over a few years.
State Level: States like Michigan and New York, which have consolidated their IT operations, reported savings of hundreds of millions of dollars by streamlining processes and reducing redundancies.

Estimating California’s Savings

Given the size and scope of California’s technology operations, the potential savings from such a consolidation could be substantial. With an estimated annual IT budget of over $4 billion, even modest efficiency gains could translate into significant savings. For example:

Administrative and Overhead Savings: A 10-20% reduction could save the state tens of millions of dollars annually.
Procurement and IT Infrastructure: Savings of 5-15% in these areas could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars over several years.
Operational Efficiency: Achieving a 10-30% reduction in operational costs could result in billions of dollars saved over a decade.

Summary

While the exact amount of savings would depend on a detailed audit and the effectiveness of the consolidation process, it’s clear that the potential for cost reduction is enormous. If California were to consolidate its technology-related offices and agencies under a unified Department of Technology, the state could potentially save $200 million to $800 million annually. However, it’s important to note that these savings might be offset by initial integration costs, and success would require overcoming political and operational challenges.

In a state as large and complex as California, every dollar saved counts. A unified Department of Technology could not only streamline operations and enhance cybersecurity but also free up substantial resources that could be reinvested in other critical areas, benefiting all Californians.