SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA - SEPTEMBER 27: California Gov. Gavin Newsom talks to reporters in the spin room following the FOX Business Republican Primary Debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library on September 27, 2023 in Simi Valley, California. Seven presidential hopefuls squared off in the second Republican primary debate as former U.S. President Donald Trump, currently facing indictments in four locations, declined again to participate. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Sacramento, California – California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s decision to require state employees to return to the office was made without clear data on productivity or office space needs, according to a newly released report from the state auditor’s office.
The audit, requested by lawmakers in May 2024, examined the governor’s 2022 order that brought state employees back to the office two days per week after extended remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also reviewed his subsequent executive order increasing the mandate to four in-office days. State Auditor Grant Parks concluded that neither move was backed by an analysis of worker productivity or department-specific needs — and that ignoring such information may have cost the state significant savings.
Parks’ report found that California could save as much as $225 million annually and reduce its office space by nearly a third if it adopted a hybrid schedule with two in-office days and three remote days. The audit criticized the governor’s “one-size-fits-all” approach, noting it conflicted with state policy encouraging flexibility in telework.
The findings also revealed that the governor’s office disregarded survey results from the Department of General Services, which had collected estimates from agencies about the space required for expanded in-office work. Those estimates suggested that forcing more on-site days would increase costs without a measurable productivity benefit.
Supporters of hybrid work policies called the audit a vindication of long-standing arguments that return-to-office mandates were political decisions rather than operational necessities. Ted Toppin, executive director of the Professional Engineers in California Government, said the findings “confirm what has been apparent for some time: Flexible telework benefits taxpayers, state government, and state employees.”
Union leaders also pointed to broader impacts beyond cost savings. Reducing commuter traffic through hybrid schedules, they said, could support California’s climate goals and help the state meet ambitious emissions targets.
The auditor recommended that lawmakers require agencies to identify which positions can successfully telework three days per week and formalize such arrangements where possible. It also urged the development of statewide guidelines for evaluating telework program effectiveness.
Newsom’s office, however, rejected the report’s conclusions. Tara Gallegos, a spokesperson for the governor, said the audit relied on “hypothetical theories and incomplete information,” and argued it did not capture the full benefits of in-person work. “This audit on state telework is not a scientific study, nor does it paint a complete picture of the state workforce or the benefits of working in person,” she wrote.
The debate now moves to the Legislature, where lawmakers will decide whether to codify hybrid telework policies — potentially locking in long-term flexibility for thousands of state employees.
