Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 1 on Education California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Great. Well, morning, Chair Perez, members of the subcommittee. Really happy to be here with you today to talk about the California Community College System budget request. So I want to start on a tremendous high note, and that is about enrollment growth off the charts. So you will remember that in 'twenty one, 'twenty two, right after the pandemic, the California Community College enrollments dropped from a high of 2,200,000 all the way down to 1,830,000 students.
And there was a lot of murmurs in the state if this is the new normal for the community colleges, given that high school enrollments were slowing down even before the pandemic. In the next year, 'twenty two-'twenty three, the community colleges, we grew by 4.9%. In 'twenty three, 'twenty four, we didn't tiptoe around this. We grew we surged 9.6% in 'twenty four, 'twenty five, another 4.6%. And now for twenty five-twenty six, we are projecting a 4.8 enrollment growth.
So my main point here is that it's not just a moment in time, but you can see a pattern of enrollment recovery from the pandemic. So right now, we are at 2.2 plus million students. When colleges enroll students without the funding that they need, they must absorb those costs locally. And in some cases, college presidents are having to seriously consider reducing access. We have many of our districts that are carrying unfunded FTES.
And so, first ask to you is to consider a 3% enrollment growth for our community colleges. And just to give you a history here, in 'twenty one, 'twenty two, we were funded at 0.5 and, again, a 0.5 in 'twenty three, 'twenty four, another 0.5. In 'twenty four, 'twenty five, we were we had 2.28%. And in the January budget from the governor, the growth funding for enrollment is at 1.5%. So our request to you is if you could increase that to 3%.
You had also requested an update on Title IX, and I'm happy to provide an update. This is an issue that is important to me. It is an issue that's important to our board of governors. In fact, our past president of the board of governors, Amy Costa, and the current President, Hilde Aguinaldo. Both of them served on the Title IX work group that was put together in response to AB 2,048.
The work group conducted research, policy analysis and practitioner consultants over the course of the year. Overwhelmingly, our work group found that the Title IX coordinators up and down the state are feeling stretched thin with the sheer workload and the lack of funding, particularly given the shifting landscape on the federal level. Our office submitted the final report to the legislature in December. So you've got a lot of details that is provided in that particular report. So I will just wrap up this section by saying that we are extremely grateful for the partnership with Assembly Member Mike Fong and the consultant Ellen Ciceretti Monroy.
And we stand ready to partner with the legislature to move this work significantly next year. Moving to the next section, just have a few comments on the Governor's January budget. So, very, very thankful for the administration's proposal, particularly the continued support for the student centered funding formula and the COLA. This was like super exciting for us. The COLA funding of 2.1% for our categorical programs.
We have multiple categorical programs within our system. We would ask, however, that you consider adding the student equity and achievement program to the list that is already in the January budget. The dollar amount that Chris Ferguson had given me for this request, which would be ongoing, is 62,300,000.0 extremely grateful for several onetime investments that the governor is making in the California community colleges. And I just want to call out a few so that you would consider supporting it as well as it goes through the legislative process. The first one is an infrastructure project that is particularly important to me as the new chancellor when I start in 2023 because I wanted to do some significant work using new AI capabilities and do student interventions in real time, but we were not able to do it because we have 72 different systems.
And coming from a local district, as chancellor of Kern, I was able to deploy immediate and quick responses to emergent situations, which we were not able to do because we have these the disparate systems. So, the common cloud data platform, thank you so much for funding it. Last year, 12,000,000, one time. We started working on it as soon as I became chancellor with the blessings of the board of governors. We had invested an initial 10,000,000.
And we're hoping that you will support the 36,000,000 that's in the January budget with 5,000,000 ongoing so we can just expand it to all of our districts. So I'm really hoping you can hold on to that funding. For the first time, okay, just so that you you get a sense of the excitement in our system. For the first time in our system's history ever, we now have real time statewide enrollment dashboard that refreshes every few minutes. You know, when I started, we would get enrollment information six to eight months after the fact.
So it was really difficult to do anything in real time, let alone have information flowing to our CSU partners for our ADT, transfer. However, this real time dashboard is for the small demonstration project that we currently have with 13 districts that cover 24 colleges. We have built California's largest unified higher education data lake capable of integrating data across major ERP systems like Banner, Colleague, and PeopleSoft. So, it is pretty revolutionary, and it's something that's celebrated in national technology conferences. So, our ask of you is that the governor's proposed 36,000,000 and 5 ongoing is kind of the final tranche.
Okay? We've made so much progress, and we don't wanna stop midstream. The final tranche needed to complete system wide integration to empower every college with real time analytics and maintain security with statewide operations. The second investment that was made in the January budget is credit for prior learning, and that's €35,000,000 onetime and €2,000,000 ongoing. And my ask is for you to support it so that we can make it through to the final finish line for the budget.
Now I know all three of you know about credit for prior learning, and this is really recognizing the skills and experience of our working learners and giving them college credit for that. And we are making significant progress. Now you invested $15,000,000 onetime last year in driving this transformation. Thank you, thank you, thank you. In just two years, the number of Californians receiving credit for prior learning as part of a credential pathway, we're focused on pathways to a credential, so not these ad hoc courses.
It has grown, and this is like a mic drop number for me, so I keep showcasing it in every form that I can. We improved the outcomes from 30,000 Californians to more than 95,000. With your one time investment that is in the governor's January budget, we want to reach 250,000. So to go from 95,000 to 250,000. So, this is not incremental.
This is credit for prior learning at scale. So, when students receive credit for prior learning, they can skip the first several courses that they already have skills for and start further along the pathway. For example, they could begin on the pathway at course six in the sequence rather than course one. This means they finish faster, they pay for fewer classes, and the state avoids funding those earlier courses, which reduces the overall cost to the state. So we are hoping that this becomes a standard feature once we are through this outcomes based model that we're hoping to implement this coming year.
Okay. Now I'm moving into my next section, and this is where I'm going to add on to the Governor's January budget six additional asks, so please bear with me. Here I go. So the first ask I've already made, please fund enrollment growth, and that is increased to 3%. In addition to that, you will also hear from our Executive Vice Chancellor, Chris Ferguson, that there are two more requests.
I mean, the 3% is like please, please support that. In addition to that, we would ask you to consider the formula that is used is like a three year average. Okay? And if you could instead choose the best performing year in the three year average, and that would help some of our districts tremendously. And then the third part of this enrollment growth is to remove the 10% growth cap, which will allow our districts not to have unfunded growth or unfunded FTES.
My second of six requests is to fund the AI literacy project. You know AI is everywhere, and we want California and Californians to be strong and knowledgeable and equipped with the skills in the age of AI and to be competitive. We don't want equity gaps to increase because of AI influencing coming into the job markets. Your community colleges are everywhere in the state of California. And, if it's not a community college, it's your community college center.
Right? So, to be able to really get into every nook and corner in California and advance AI literacy, we're asking for $10,000,000 one time. Let me Okay. So my third request is the Rebuild L. A.
Project is what we are calling this. Last year, we came to you and asked for 5,000,000 to fund colleges in the LA area for rebuilding LA after the Eaton And The Palisades Fires. Thank you so very much for your investment of 5,000,000. In addition to, I know you've invested in many other areas, but for your community colleges, you put in 5,000,000. We funded Pasadena City College.
We funded Santa Monica, LA Harbor College, and LA TradeTech. And this will be focused on expanding construction trades, graduates to get into the workforce for the Rebuild LA, and we're asking for $20,000,000 Next ask is for our veterans project, which is a 14,200,000.0 ask ongoing. And I really want to recognize there's a huge gang who's sitting behind me from the Veterans Caucus, from the California Community Colleges, Rick McLennan, the Chancellor of Ventura and Ryan Corner, the President of Glendale. And we've got individuals from the Veterans Resources Centers all here to talk to you as well. Now this funding of $14,200,000 Proposition 98 is to better support veterans and active duty service members.
This funding will help increase staffing capacity at the colleges, from the veterans resource centers to deploying AI enabled processes to analyze JSTs to providing, technical assistance to the field. And I'm almost to my last two asks. The second to the last is our CalBright funding. CalBright is a new innovative statewide online college to support our low income working Californians. And when you look at the enrollment growth, it's significant.
It's off the charts. And when I started in 2023, I partnered with the president of CalBright, which who you'll be hearing from in a later panel, president, Ajitha Mainin, who really has partnered with other community college districts. We've we've we've launched a series of noncredit conferences where we're looking at low barrier, entry points for these working Californians to get their foot in the door and start on that pathway to their own economic mobility. This is an innovation that we have invested over the years, and we are at a point in time that that commitment in solidifying that investment is going to place us as a model nationally for our commitment to working Californians, low income Californians, and advancing our equity agenda. And my last request, as I wrap up my comments, is for our own office, the Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges.
We are a small but really a mighty team, and we were so grateful to the administration for funding four positions. One of those actually is to strengthen our legal team to provide support for the colleges as we're navigating some of the complex terrain. But also, with with all of the various programs with the with AI, we have a request that totals up to 5,000,000 ongoing, which we feel is a a drop bucket in a state budget. So, that would really advance our capacity to move a very, very ambitious agenda for the workers of California, for the students of California. And that concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to answer questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Chancellor Christian. Appreciate your presentation and the update that you provided. I, you know, would love for you to speak a little bit more to, you know, some of the enrollment growth challenges I know that some districts are facing. I know there's a number of districts that have seen very significant enrollment growth over the last several years, but because of the way that the three year average is built, they're not necessarily being given the funding for those students. And so, we're continuing to serve a growing population but are not seeing the same dollars coming in to support those services.
How many campuses would you estimate are in that situation that are seeing an increase in enrollment growth but are not receiving the adequate funding that they need for services? And comparatively, how many campuses would you say are seeing declining enrollment growth?
Speaker 4
So I'll leave it to Chris Ferguson to give you specific numbers. Now, I'll make two comments. It is going to be a significant relief for our college campuses if you were to consider changing the three year average to selecting the highest in the three years. This will position those colleges who are recovering and seeing the enrollment growth most recently, and they're seeing it into the future. That will give them the confidence to build out the programs and meet the needs.
So, would ask for your serious consideration of that. Most of our college campuses are growing. There are a few that are looking at redesigning or one district, for example, that I'll use as an example here, is a district that has four colleges. And they're looking at merging two of their college campuses into one to realize efficiencies. And the way they are framing it is they're pruning to grow.
So, our colleges are are good stewards of public money. So, they're not only asking for support of enrollment growth, they are seriously focused on looking at efficiencies and how they can reduce the cost side of the equation as well. And there are three districts right now who are in the process of going through rightsizing conversations. So the signal from you as the senate leaders in in in this budget space, it would be a huge boost for our entire system and those colleges to consider changing that formula. It'll give them confidence to be able to open their doors wider and serve our Californians.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I want to see if my colleagues have any questions. Senator Archuleta?
Speaker 5
Yes. Thank you, chancellor, for coming before us. And I certainly can acknowledge the fact that serving and representing our veterans are so very, very important. I have visited various colleges as the chair of the military and veterans committee, go to Pasadena and to Rio Hondo and and Mount Sack and some of the others. And I'm really proud of what the work that is being done to help our veterans.
There's no doubt. But I'd like to talk about senate bill, twelve sixty two that, is near and dear to me because it addresses and madam chair, you this was, before you became our senator, and it was an issue pertaining to the reserves that are in the budget in each and every one of them. And I'm concerned that some of the reserves in our community colleges individually goes from 70 to 80 to 90 as high as 97%. And because such high reserves are there, we're not taking care of some of the professors that we call freeway flyers. And of course, are professors that have to go from one community college to the other to the other in the course of a day and evening just to be able to sustain themselves.
So I speak on behalf of them that they came before me and hence the senate bill twelve sixty two. And we talk about infrastructure, we talk about necessity of growth that you'd like 3% more, $10,000,000 for AI. But I think we have to look at what we have because these professors that have been with you for years and years that are classified as part time, that they need to be looked at. And I'm hoping that you'll take a good look at them and and realize that some adjustments have to be made. And that some of these campuses, as I mentioned, across the board, if you analyze each and every one of our campuses, that maybe with your your input and your request to tell you to in turn tell us why that 97% reserve is necessary because I I think it's it's too high.
Some of these professors are not provided with health care. They're constantly on a part time status, maybe never ever looking to be part full time because the system just won't allow it. So I think you need to take a good look at all that and see what we could do in the future and get back with me. And I personally like to hear how you're gonna address that. And I would acknowledge the fact that our community colleges are there throughout California desperately needed to open doors in education.
And yes indeed AI is important. Yes indeed, we have to take a good look. And of course, in the LA County area, of course, our chair is very much in tune with the fires that took place and affected Altadena and Pasadena, which obviously is Pasadena College and and East LA College and surrounding areas. We need to do that. And of course, the Calbrae.
Yes. The low income. We can't forget those. And campuses that need, believe it or not, the housing that is so important. A lot on the plate, but right now, I just like to throw at you these reserves really out of line, I think.
So if you'd like to comment, I would appreciate.
Speaker 4
Yeah. No. Thank you. Thank you, senator. First of all, just warm my heart hearing you, you know, go back to the veterans conversation.
I think you'll be hugely happy with this project that our colleges did. We have little over 30,000 veterans right now in our system, and we rolled out a credit for prior learning project where we wanted all of the veterans to automatically, okay, automatically be recognized for their basic military training and be granted, three to six college credits. And our colleges just went to work, and we want to, therefore, the future, be able to say welcome to the California community colleges. You've already completed six college credits. And, of course, that you can get up to, 30 college credits.
And I'm gonna make sure that our office invites you to be a speaker at our Veterans Summit. Going to the second issue that you're raising related to the reserves and to our part time faculty. Our part time faculty are the core, you know, of our faculty workforce. And it is a constant issue that we collectively, I agree with you, we must solve for and we must figure out a way to to support them. I I personally, when I graduated, taught in a whole year, I taught at LA Harbor College.
I taught at Citrus College, and I taught at El Camino College. And at that time, I didn't have a car. So, I was riding the RTD to teach math classes. It's a hardship to make ends meet. So, I completely, you know, support where your heart is in supporting our part time faculty workforce.
Our Executive Vice Chancellor, Chris Ferguson, and I were, you know, talking about the reserves. And I'm starting to understand, you know, each of the districts, as opposed to just looking at it overall at a system level. I do know when I talk to individual presidents and chancellors that boards of trustees at the local level often rely on encumbering reserves for projects that they want to do. In the event that, you know, funding increases, but, for example, COLA doesn't increase for certain categorical programs, then local trustees and chancellors and presidents usually go into those reserves, and they look ahead into the future and try to encumber it for staffing staffing decisions that they have made. So it is complex, and the solution is going to reside with working with every district and and figuring out a path forward.
I have confidence, senator, that the bill that you have introduced and the conversation the resulting conversations will trigger a process that will ultimately result in a good place. I I have confidence in the process, and I personally commit to you that I will get engaged with it side by side with with Chris as we tackle it together and and have that direct line of communication with you.
Speaker 5
And and as a former freeway flyer yourself, probably didn't have insurance, health insurance for yourself and your family. And now you're the chancellor. So look back and see, my god, I am now in a position that I could change that. And if you only had three professors per year, per college, imagine what that would do for morale. At least they would look forward to possibly being one of the, professors that would get tenure, who would get that insurance for their family, and who would receive a pay that they wouldn't have to spend two hours, three hours a day on the freeway from spot to spot.
So I encourage you to please get with me. And in reference to the veterans, as a combat veteran myself with the eighty second airborne for the veterans that are there, I have two sons that are still serving, are also veterans. I will tell you this, it is a great program. It is a great way to go. When we get the MOS, which is the military occupational specialty, and marry it with the curriculum in the community colleges and increase that potential to get to be, part of the system faster, quicker, and bring that experience over to the community colleges.
It's a great idea. So I encourage you continue to do that and I will be honored to be a guest speaker with your military and veterans veterans that are there and and we'll encourage them to stay in school and and go on and to be proud, of the community college that they're with. So I thank you. And, I'm not here to jump on the fact that we've not been able to do something, but I encourage you to work with your faculty, work with your your, board of trustees. Get these reserves in line.
Let's bring some more people on board and let's take them and their families and their insurance. Thank you, madam president. Thank you. Chair.
Speaker 6
Yes, madam chair. Thank you. And welcome. Great to see you here today. So I I've heard quite a bit of information today as far as the ask go.
I'm gonna go towards a little more clarification on the point that you made with regards to the pathways that you've been able to invest in the $50,000,000 investment that the state made in order to ensure that we had pathways from professional to pathways to to certificates from 30,000 to $95,000. I'm assuming that's in one year?
Speaker 4
In two years. We went from 30,000 Californians getting credit for prior learning to 95,000.
Speaker 6
That's wonderful. If I could just have for the record, what sort of pathways are you looking at? What pathways are looking at as a state through the community colleges that in what certificates?
Speaker 4
Yeah. So for example, one of the projects that many colleges have and now we're trying to scale it is our apprenticeship pathways. So at Norco College, we have a pilot with the carpenter's apprenticeship program to see if we can connect with journey persons who have completed the carpentry apprenticeship program to come on to a community college pathway. So it would be a career technical education pathway that could lead to an associate's degree or to a baccalaureate degree. Now there are many options that they could choose.
There are automation, associate's degrees, there are a variety of associate's degrees that they could get. And that would then connect with potential advancement to our supervisor role for a person who's been working as a carpenter in the field. So it's very intentional. So that's one example of pathways. Another example with industry certification, we have technical certificates like Google certificates, data analytics.
That's another concrete example. So, we're looking at mapping those skills within the Google certificate, let's say, data analytics, onto courses in a computer computer studies or computer information system pathway to an associate's degree. Then then, could lead onto a baccalaureate degree. It could be a community college bachelor's degree or a transfer degree. So, it's kind of getting them to that next credential and to the next credential.
And, we're doing it very intentionally. I'll give you one more, which I'm super excited about, and that is the emergency EMS programs, which are provided by a third party, not by community colleges. But learning is learning wherever it happens. So, community colleges recognizing that and bringing them in and getting those credits knocked out, it saves that person money, and it also gets sent to the next credential faster.
Speaker 6
Okay. Are the community colleges currently placing do we have a list that is going to be provided or is provided online publicly in which we can see how I'm assuming those $50,000,000 were for the investment of trying to matriculate that life experience into the pathway into a certificate or a associate's degree? Is that
Speaker 4
So, yeah, I'm not tracking 50,000,000, but maybe Chris can answer that question about the 50,000,000. What we did with the initial investment, which what I'm tracking is about 12,000,000, is we've started building out the infrastructure, the the platform where we can start identifying the articulation of the courses with the skills and have that visible, publicly visible. That platform is called MAP, which is mapping articulation project or platform. So a part of the money was building that infrastructure. Part of the money, 50,000 went to per community college, which, again, I have to shout out a senator to our community colleges.
Our presidents and chancellors really make the dollar extend significantly. So, I mean, when I think about, you know, 50,000 to a college, it's almost like an honorarium to get them to invest. That's not sufficient to get them to reassign a faculty member to take on the project. So people investing their time to do it. So, that's how we distributed that funding.
The new funding that we're requesting, the 35,000,000, we have worked out what we're calling an outcomes based model. So, we will tell the colleges that we're going to track how many Californians are getting transcripted for CPL. So, it's not a verbal commitment. We need to see that you've got, you know, your 50 veterans have been transcripted for credit for prior learning that they got from the military. They need to be transcripted for their apprenticeship.
It needs to be transcripted for the IT, for the EMS. Once it's transcripted and we collect the data, then the colleges will get the funding. So it's an outcomes based model that we're working out, and we're experimenting with it. But when I see the numbers that are increasing and I look at the data and and, Sandra, it sounds like you're really interested in this project. We will make a note to send the entire subcommittee a detailed report on how we have scaled it up, and we can give you even specific community college examples.
I think this is going to be a game changer. No state has figured out how to do it systematically. They do it one college at a time, and it's done in an ad hoc kind of a way. By us building out the infrastructure, we can mobilize and do I mean, think about it, for us to be able to tell the rest of the nation, hey, an apprenticeship pathway and a college pathway in California, it's one and the same. I mean, that is like mind blowing.
So we have the potential to realize it and we're building it out. I'm sorry. I can keep talking about this as you can see because it's a big vision.
Speaker 6
Yeah. And this helpful because it gives us an idea as to which pathways and what and what work experience are we focusing on, especially in California that we have such a need for to build our workforce. So trying to figure out where and how the the community colleges are focusing as far as what pathways you're working on towards, you know, a an associates or certificate is would be helpful. Can I say one
Speaker 4
more thing, Senator? The other piece that's really part of our criteria is to make sure that the pathway leads to a job and a promotional opportunity for the individual. So, we're not ad hoc ing the pathways. There is, you know, it's very systematic in looking at good jobs and careers for our workers when they come in to get that credit and that economic mobility. So, that's really built into it.
Speaker 6
Perfect. The other item that I would like you to expand a little bit more, you addressed the real time dashboard and that there were mechanisms to ensure that you had real true real student enrollment data available at any time. Within that platform or dashboard, are there or have there been any safeguards or mechanisms put in place in order to ensure that we're protecting against fraudulent ghost students and enrollment? And where are you on ensuring that that system is actually more secure?
Speaker 4
Yeah. The that has been really a tough, tough, tough issue that we kind of, you know, engage with. And we've got a lot of, you know, press on that as well. It's been really a tough battle. Let me start with the good news first because if if when when fraudulent enrollment, when that phrase is put out there, people get stressed out and, you know, it's like everyone just, oh my gosh.
So I want us to just breathe into it while I go through some of the details for you, senator. First, I wanna tell you the bottom line right now is that the enrollments that are going through the process and is getting reported, those are real students. Okay? It's what happens from the application to the final numbers that has caused this huge amount of workload for our colleges, and the the press that we've been getting has been crazy. But the bottom line is we can say confidently to the public that the final numbers that have come in are clean numbers.
These are real students. These are not bots that are taking the spot of students, and these are not bots who are drawing down on the support systems, the the aid, the financial aid we we give our students. So that's the headline. So what did we put in place? I remember the the board of governors, when all of this was coming to a head, actually, the you know, we had a conversation, and they provided a a strong directive to the chancellor's office.
So when you think about the enrollment pipeline, the application is like picture a triangle. So when you look at applications, if we have 2,200,000 students, you know we have many more millions who are applying. Right? So you've got the application, then it comes down to the students being admitted into the college, and then you have the actual enrollment that happens in the classes, and then you have the financial aid. So it's like a funnel, like a triangle.
So,
Speaker 4
have put some checks and balances into the application to provide some relief for the colleges. Because most of the work, colleges had their registrars, their counselors, their faculty checking on students within their classes, because they will see an enrollment but no student coming in. So it was all hands on, plus we had technology. So we have put in checks and balances. In fact, we recently entered into an agreement with the DMV to use their identification verifying method to verify students before, you know, the funnel starts, making sure that no financial aid, you know, really protecting it at the at the last step.
So we put that in place. And prior to the DMV contract, we were working with another, EdTech partner, ID. Me, in providing the the identity verification. We made that mandatory. A board of governors said, nope.
We have to make that mandatory. So we made it before it was optional, but then it became mandatory. We're also using AI tools. You know, there's there's a good news and the bad news, I guess, with AI, but we're able to deploy AI tools to recognize patterns and to be able to prevent, again, enrollment fraudulent, those bots, and clean clean them out of the system. So I did go ahead.
Speaker 6
Sorry. At what point of the triangle are you implementing those items? I'm assuming
Speaker 4
Yeah. So, we've got the application. And the AI is in the second step. We had we had some districts who were pioneers and champions who tried it and retested it. Because our system is also very careful about student data and student privacy.
So when we engage into contracts with a third party, we make sure that those contracts, you know, really keep safe our student information. So we got it deployed at the college level, not at the system application level. So at the college level, we were able to do procurement that brought down the costs and have it implemented at the college level. And still, we are keeping in touch with college. There's actually an audit happening right now, so we will have a report that comes out of that audit as well.
So by the time it trickles down, all of what you heard, we have got it much more now with the tools and the humans in the loop. We have it much more manageable. In terms of what we report out, those numbers are clean. I mean, that goes into with so much scrutiny that by the time we report out the numbers at the final part of the funnel, we are in good shape. And we can also provide we've got detailed reports on it that shows you the numbers at every step of the way we get.
We are constantly connecting with our colleges who fill out surveys regularly. So we are very much have our finger on the pulse of what is happening on this issue.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Senator Chobog. Thank you, Chancellor Christian, your presentation. I appreciate the information that you've provided today. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item that we have here,
Speaker 1
issue three on the student centered funding formula. And we have Chris Ferguson for the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office joining us, as well as the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst Office.
Speaker 9
Phil Osborne, Department of Finance. Got to do a quick overview of the apportionments and the student center funding formula. So structurally, the Governor's budget, we fully pay back the $408,400,000 in deferrals with Prop 98 general fund in the 2025 budget act. And we are also proposing a withdrawal in the budget year of $44,500,000 on a one time basis to support the SCFF from the public school system stabilization account. For ongoing core investments, we are proposing $271,200,000 for a 2.41% cost of living adjustment for the SCFF and seven categorical programs.
We're also proposing some growth, but that will be in the next item. And then we have a $88,700,000 one time in Prop 98 general fund to cover projected increase in the SCF apportionment costs in the current year. And I'm available or I'm ready to answer any questions you may have on that process on any of that.
Speaker 3
Good morning, chair and senators. Lisa King with the Legislative Analyst's Office. So this issue covers, two proposed augmentations for apportionments. One is the increase in current year costs that my colleague from the Department of Finance just described, and the other is a ongoing cost of living adjustment beginning in the budget year of 2.41%. We recommend prioritizing both of these apportionments proposals within available proposition 98 funding.
These proposals help districts address their core operating costs while also providing them with some flexibility to cover local conditions. As usual, the data that's used to calculate the cost of living adjustment rate will be finalized this spring, so you'll have an updated number at the May Revision. Thank you. Happy to take questions.
Speaker 5
Chris Ferguson, Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Strategic Initiatives at the Chancellor's Office. So a few descriptive statistics of where we're at in the student centered funding formula. Roughly 34 districts are on the core provisions of the funding formula. Another 25 are on stability or declining enrollment provisions. Although I would note, within stability, in those 25, some can be using the what's called the summer shift.
So it could be that FTES for summer is shifting between fiscal years. And then roughly 13 are on the hold harmless provisions as of the 'twenty five, 'twenty six first principle apportionment. Of those 13 that are on hold harmless, roughly three are excess tax districts, meaning that the formula wouldn't have a specific impact on those districts. That said, we're highly supportive of the $400,000,000 investment to retire deferrals as that builds resiliency for the community colleges, highly supportive of the 2.41% cost of living adjustment, which we project to be roughly $240,100,000 for the student centered funding formula and highly supportive of the addition for growth as well as the $88,700,000 to ensure that the funding formula is fully supported. On that $88,700,000 in particular, I'd just note that without those resources, we would have what's called the deficit factor, which means the entitlements that are computed for districts would have to be reduced, and they would see fewer resources, making it more challenging for them to sustain course sections and open access for students across the board.
What we saw in the Great Recession is that when we can't afford to sustain those course sections, we end up with what's called the rationing of access because students can't get the course that they need to continue their educational journey. So, as constructed, very supportive of the package for the student centered funding formula, very supportive of our colleges. We are seeing to the earlier question, we're seeing 54 of our districts out of 72 experience growth year over year. So, from a three year average versus a current year FTES perspective, that would mean 54 colleges would benefit from that provision because they would be resourced more quickly for the courses that they're serving today. Thank you.
Happy to answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 5
I've got to leave at 12:30 so I've to jump ahead of myself a little bit, we've got financing and infrastructure. I've got these questions. You know, with with the number of of colleges, campuses we have and infrastructure is gonna be an issue, maintenance is gonna be an issue. Do you have any idea how you prioritize one versus the other? Is it by the number of students, the calls you get in?
How are we addressing that with the number of expenditures that we're looking at in the future? Certainly. So we view it from two different perspectives. We have core infrastructure projects, which are generally new facilities, modernization of facilities, or addressing life safety issues. For deferred maintenance, we view that as another program.
Those are generally smaller projects to ensure the lifespan of our buildings is maintained and they remain useful into the future. So of the two, there's roughly 2,200,000,000 in deferred maintenance needs in our system. The Governor's budget proposes $120,000,000 just over $120,000,000 I believe it's $120,700,000 to support deferred maintenance. Those funds are generally allocated on a per FTES basis out to colleges to address some of that $2,200,000,000 sorry, but no, need. On the facilities front, for infrastructure projects, we have a very specific matrix that we use to prioritize how projects are ordered and what would come up next.
That includes, you know, anything from life safety issues to building age to there's there are adjustments for equity and for location in the state. But what we do is, within the overall splits, from our office's perspective, roughly 50% of whatever would be available from Avon is allocated first toward life safety projects, those projects addressing the type of issue that would create an immediate challenge on the district or being in that facility. Of the remaining 50%, 65% is allocated to support modernization projects, and 35% is to support additional growth or the ability to serve additional students on those campuses. That's generally how we approach it. We use the same matrix and the same approach for all projects.
They get ranked in a priority order, and we go down the priority list based on their points. If there's ever a tie from our office's perspective, it means that all in that particular rank should be funded at the same time. We wouldn't say one over another. And we do provide those via a capital outlay budget change proposal to the Department of Finance for review. It's then reviewed by this committee, reviewed by the legislative analyst to determine what project should move forward.
We don't distinguish between the, you know, types of facilities that are coming forward within our rankings. So if it is a performing arts center, if it is a gym, if it is a classroom, if that classroom is for science classroom that needs lab space versus an English language arts, you know, facility. From a priority perspective, once we add those points up, we don't distinguish between what type. It's just based on the overall priority point. Yeah.
And public safety, obviously. We think of the neighborhoods and everything else and involvement, but we're talking about health and making a building look pretty versus making it safe, making it accessible. And of course with the new laws that we have, we have to be aware of students with disabilities and so on. And all that's taken into place, I'm assuming. Absolutely.
Accessibility is absolutely taken into account when we build our facilities. They are built to state standards. They are actually built to a higher state standard. Because of the field act, we try to ensure that all of our facilities in a community college campus and this goes for school districts as well are constructed to that higher level so that they are a place that the public can turn to in the event of an emergency or a natural disaster. So we do build to that higher standard so that we have safe, accessible facilities across the span.
Part of our rationale for requesting resources for microgrids in our system ask is because we want those facilities to always be available in the event of an emergency or in the event that that power might be needed for a peak load situation. But from our perspective, it goes together in terms of we're trying to take that integrated approach to address life safety first, to address our need to maintain and modernize our existing facilities, and then to address the need for additional facilities as student enrollments grow. This is the same process across the state. And follow-up if I may. I mentioned public safety Mhmm.
Student safety. I know that Rio Hondo College just implemented their program with their school police, guess we'd call it, or college police. Are we looking to expand those programs? And we're finding that it's necessary because Rio Hondo did a study and absolutely necessary that they had their their their not school police, but college police was necessary because the enrollment and expansions and so on. Yeah, the types of programs that would be offered are traditionally determined at that local district level, but we're absolutely supportive of colleges expanding access to programs, courses, whether it's a degree program, a certificate, or credential program that meet an industry need and an employment need in their community.
That is fundamentally what our colleges should be looking at as they build out programs. We're looking to get our students significant economic mobility, and that's the way we do it. We address needs in our community. We train them for the jobs that are available, and we focus on how we can uplift our communities. Yeah.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And appreciate the questions and the conversation. The student centered funding formula is something that, you know, know really well. It was one of the first things I worked on when I started working at the Campaign for College Opportunity. And so watching this slow phase in of implementation has been really fascinating and seeing it put to work.
I recognize, you know, we're also troubleshooting, right? And we were just discussing a little bit earlier some of the language around enrollment and how colleges are being underfunded despite enrollment growth. And would like to know, would increased funding for enrollment push more colleges out of Hold Harmless and stability and on to SCIF? So that's number one. And then number two, you know, now that we are in the second year where Hold Harmless does not receive a COLA, how is that going to impact districts in 'twenty six, 'twenty seven?
Speaker 5
So it depends on the specific enrollment growth for a given district. So I can't say with certainty of the 13, if the additional enrollment growth would necessarily push all of them off the hold harmless. But what I can say is, I've looked at our 'twenty four, 'twenty five annualized data. If every one of those hold harmless districts were to get back to their pre SCFF enrollment levels, pretty much everyone would be either off the hold harmless provision or incredibly close where a very small COLA would push them over the following year. So and that's just on enrollment.
That's not factoring in the success metric, supplemental metric, increases that come with that increased enrollment. So, absolutely a focus on enrollment growth, and growth in our community colleges would do that. That said, there are areas of the state today I won't sugarcoat it that have seen demographic shifts, that have seen hardship in regrowing those enrollments or getting back to those enrollment levels. Oftentimes, it's tied to the cost of living in a particular area. The high cost of living generally leads young families to move to other areas of the state that have a lower cost of living, and we've seen those types of demographic shifts.
So there are some districts where it will be very difficult to regrow the enrollments. But within that, I would I'd be remiss if I didn't note that the state's historical approach for declining enrollment, so stability, or hold harmless, is to provide and the three year average as well is it provides those that are seeing those enrollment declines with a soft landing to make the adjustments necessary at their campus level to accommodate the number of students that they're serving. So, the state's, you know, overall focus has never been at least for community colleges has never been that we sustain a given level of programming. Rather, we provide for a soft landing to accommodate changes over time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I think that is pretty much it, Senator Archuleta. Do you have any further questions? So that is it for this item. I appreciate your presentation.
So we'll be moving on to issue four regarding enrollment updates, and also once again have all the same folks, so we won't be having to You can go ahead and get started whenever you're ready.
Speaker 9
Okay. A high level overview. The Governor's budget provides $31,900,000 ongoing Prop 98 general fund for enrollment growth in of 0.5% in 'twenty six-'twenty seven, the current budget year. This you know, we're also providing a 1% growth in the current year, 'twenty five-'twenty six, in the amount of $55,300,000 so they kind of cascade into each other. When taken together, it's a total 1.5% growth in budget year in a total amount of $87,200,000 Prop 98 general fund.
Happy to take any questions.
Speaker 3
So along with the portions increases we discussed in the previous issue, enrollment growth is the other proposal that we recommend prioritizing for available ongoing Proposition 98 funding. This is because half of districts are already on track to exceed their current year enrollment growth targets, and there are a number of factors that could lead to continued enrollment pressure in the budget year. One of those factors is regional demographic growth. In recent years, enrollment growth has been concentrated in a few specific regions of the state, including the Central Valley, the Inland Empire, the North Far North. These regions are projected to see continued population growth in 2026, '27, potentially leading to continued enrollment pressure.
A second factor to keep in mind is unemployment. The state's unemployment rate has generally increased over the past few years. If this trend persists, we could continue to see more individuals return to college while the labor market is weak. And then a third factor you could consider is the expansion of dual enrollment. If you look at enrollment trends over the past several years, this is an area where the state has seen particularly rapid growth, high school students involved in community college courses.
We think that the enrollment pressure from the expansion of dual enrollment is likely to continue in the coming years as currently both school and community college districts have strong fiscal incentives to expand these programs. Ultimately, the amount of growth that the legislature funds will likely depend in part on available resources, and that amount of growth could be higher or lower than the governor proposes. Regardless of the specific amount, we do have a recommendation on the timing of that growth funding. So as the Department of Finance described, the governor proposes to begin a portion of it in twenty twenty five, twenty and another portion in twenty twenty six, twenty seven. We recommend beginning the funds in 2627 without revising the current year target.
This is because the state sets growth targets in part based on the amount of enrollment it has deemed it can afford. Historically, the expectation has been that districts will manage to those targets. Our concern is that the state begins to instead cover the higher costs when districts exceed the targets that it sets. That could create an incentive for districts to disregard the state's budget constraints moving forward. Thank you.
Happy to take any questions.
Speaker 5
Certainly. Chris Ferguson again. Very supportive of the Governor's proposal for 1.5% enrollment growth split over two fiscal years, with 1% starting in 'twenty five-'twenty six and onetwo percent starting in 'twenty six-'twenty seven. You know, our ultimate goal as a system is to have no unfunded FTES because that sends a strong message to our districts to serve students, serve them well, make sure they have access to the course sections that they need to complete timely, and certainly achieve that ultimate economic mobility coming out of our program. So it all starts with the student stepping onto our campus.
But within this, you know, Vision 2,030 does have a goal to increase enrollments across the next five years. The chancellor at different times has very much said, If we could get to 3,000,000 students, if we could start chipping away at the 6,800,000 Californians that have some college but no degree and get them re enrolled and get them upskilled and reskilled, just the economic mobility and the benefit to our communities that we would see would be tremendous. So we continue to push forward on enrollment growth and try to serve as many students as we possibly can, as efficiently as we possibly can, you know, in any way necessary to meet their individual needs as well. So we have students that are full time. We have students that are part time.
But I would say this is an area of success at a system wide level over the last four years coming out of the pandemic. We hit pretty much an all time low coming into the pandemic, and we've pretty much recovered on a system wide basis all of that lost enrollment. We now exceed the overall enrollment level prior to the pandemic. But it's uneven. So there are some districts in the state that are not experiencing enrollment growth, and what that means for those districts is they are under the construct of the student centered funding formula, those districts without growth are going to have some very difficult conversations around how you adjust your programming to the size of student body that you're now serving.
So, again, very, very supportive of this proposal. A few just descriptors. There are five districts that are over that 10% enrollment cap that the chancellor noted. There are 54 districts that are growing and would benefit from the current year to the greater of the current year, three year rolling average or prior year stability. That's the same approach on those three that K-twelve education has within average daily attendance computations.
And I would just leave you with this is an area of success for California. Decline or dual enrollment growth area of success for California, not just for our system. It's based if we look back to a 2018 report out of Kern County or, sorry, Kern Community College District, it showed that it actually increased college going rates. So those students may end up at a community college. More students may end up at our University of California or California State University campus.
So increases in dual enrollment and access to dual enrollment has a tremendous benefit on college going rates. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. In regards to enrollment growth, how much unfunded enrollment from 2024 and 'twenty five and 2025 to 2026 is there? And how much do you estimate? I don't know if you plan if you happen to have those numbers.
And what would be the fiscal impact of changing enrollment funding rules to eliminate the 10% cap on enrollment growth or to allow colleges to receive enrollment funding based on either the three year average or current year enrollment instead of just the three year average?
Speaker 5
Sure. And we constructed them separately. So I don't have 'twenty four, 'twenty five if you wanted to go back to that year today, but I do have 'twenty five, 'twenty six. So to meet what we're seeing as of the first principal apportionment, roughly $90,000,000 in additional funding would be needed for that additional 1.5% growth. And we would ask that that start in 'twenty five'twenty six and move forward.
It's roughly $54,000,000 if we were to fund the greater of the current year or three year rolling average, and it's roughly $30,000,000 to fund all of that above cap unfunded growth.
Speaker 5
Yes. Obviously, we're trying to increase enrollment, no doubt. And the the hope is that this 33% growth, that money that's needed versus our one and a half percent that the governor had. Well, sooner or later, it's gonna cross because you're you're, you know, cheering everyone to get out there and get back in the school, everything else. Are are we gonna find ourselves that that that necessity for that 3% is gonna hitch hit us quicker and harder than we realize, or are we gonna be able to move this thing along over the next three or four years?
I think it is sustainable, and I think the growth trends are are sustainable moving forward. Certainly, the overall construct of the Governor's budget provides some flexibility and some protection in the event of variability in future revenue estimates. So they propose using a percentage of ongoing revenues for or ongoing Proposition 98 resources for onetime purposes. That helps with those changes from year to year moving forward. On that overall front, certainly we do think it is sustainable.
That is our goal. But I would also note, and I think this is really critical, that it ties back to our integrated approach. As we think about credit for prior learning, that enables us to more efficiently recognize the learning that a student has already achieved in their work experience. So they actually start further down the road, which means there are fewer units in classroom time that would be needed to complete that degree. We also have a Vision 2030 goal around decreasing continuing to decrease the number of excess units, which are the units above what is necessary to achieve your AA degree.
It's roughly if I recall, it's roughly 84 units right now to achieve, on average, a 60 unit degree. So we continue the effort to reduce that as well. So we're trying to do the we're trying to push enrollment growth in a way that is efficient and that allows students to minimize the amount of time that it takes to complete their educational goal. My question is, again, I'm concerned about meeting that goal, that the pace is gonna outmaneuver what we're trying to do because we can't leave anyone behind. No doubt.
So we just gotta be prepared. That's what I'm trying to ascertain from you. Yeah. That, you know, that how strict are we gonna have to be and diligent looking towards a 3% growth and needing those funds because of the influx of students and everything else. Yeah, agree.
And there is a risk that if our growth exceeds what the budget is ultimately able to support, what colleges will inevitably do, first they'll turn to your earlier comment, they'll turn to reserves to try and use those reserves to sustain the staffing levels that they have, to sustain access to those courses, because they will want to ensure those reserves can be used to avoid layoffs and can be used to support those programs. And hence, those reserves. Yes. Yes. And they do use them in those situations.
Ultimately, if the state is not able to sustain it long term, that's when we would end up with the rationing of access where they start having to pull back on the number of courses that would be available to students. So we're open access. You can enroll in our institution, but you may not be able to access the course you need for your given area of study.
Speaker 10
Yeah. Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance. I'd just like to add for context. I think it's important in this particular discussion to note where the growth is coming from in the system. So, building off of what the LAO said a little bit earlier, a lot of the growth that we're currently seeing statewide, again, not on a campus by campus basis, but on the statewide level, is being driven by dual enrollment, which is a different kind of program than I think we normally think of when we think of community college growth.
And the state has some levers there, too, to incentivize dual enrollment. But I would also note that, you know, decline in birth rates that has been happening for many years now began in 2008, which means in 2026, that first cohort is turning 18 years old. And so, we do believe that we're going to start to see some of the impacts of declining birth rates moving into higher education as well. And that could also impact the uptake of dual enrollment. So, would just wanted to point out for context that there are many different factors to consider when thinking about growth in the community colleges and when what that looks like when we hit those that point of of of growth and and funding.
Speaker 5
Well, I I just like the general public and and the students and our veterans out there to understand that the governor is really, really serious about supporting community colleges, and we are as the budget committee. But the fact in data is we have to be prepared and we can't find ourselves trying to play catch up and I think this is where the budget needs to know how things are going. And if we have to add more fuel to the engine, that means we have to be prepared because we certainly wanna encourage everyone to participate in our community colleges. And the more we have our seniors that are graduating from high school thinking in that direction, employers thinking to sending people in. However, we increase the enrollment, it's just so necessary to be prepared.
That's my point. Thank you. Go ahead. If you were going to make a comment. I was just going to note, you know, to Jessica's point that in our data sets on enrollments, roughly two thirds of our students are 24 or older today.
So, you know, we've done, as a system, a phenomenal, I would say this to all our districts, and our faculty, our classified staff, all of our campus communities have done a phenomenal job coming out of the recession or not recession, pandemic, coming out of the pandemic to try and serve more students across the board, whether that's out of high school, whether that's an adult looking for an upskilling or reskilling opportunity. They remain open and available. The demographic shifts, again, are real, so not every district is experiencing that type of growth. But just have to commend our system and our interest holders across the board for their work to serve their communities to meet those needs, irrespective of where you're coming from in life, whether you're an older experienced individual or a student right out of high school, we're prepared to serve you and do all that we can to serve you well. Okay.
Any other comments and so on? If not, we'll go on to issue number five. Okay. And of course, that's Albrecht. And just to share with you our chair, she's due back.
Okay. And if she doesn't make it in about five minutes, we'll pause and and I've gotta catch a plane and she can take over. Alright.
Speaker 5
Go right ahead. I think you got a five minute presentation in your initial presentation. Go ahead. Now I know. Introduce yourself, please.
Speaker 11
Good morning, chair and honorable committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm Ajit Mehen, president and CEO of Calbright College. I'm joined by Ed Lee, Calbright's chief financial officer, as well as Calbright's vice president, Bill Rawlings, and board member, Pamela Haynes. Seven years ago, the legislature gave Calbright a very clear charge, build an educational model and a college that works for and with adult learners.
Today, California urgently needs institutions like Calbright that are agile and and aligned with the state's evolving economic, social, and workforce realities. We are equipping students with technical and durable skills that employers demand across fields like technology, health care, and business, And we're delivering results, serving over 6,200 students, awarding more than 2,000 certificates, and driving employment gains. Median hourly wage increases of 20 to $25 or over $8,000 annually that support career mobility and strengthen California's public higher education ecosystem. Today, CalBright serves learners in 57 out of 58 counties, 92% are over the age of 25, three quarters come from BIPOC communities, and 25% are parents or caregivers. These are among the nearly 7,000,000 Californians 25 without a college credential, but also those returning to higher education after years away looking to reskill or upskill.
So we see that every day. We see that in students like Chris, who came to Calbride after being laid off from retail and reskilled into his first job in IT. Luana, a parent who needed a flexible online program while raising her family, and Richard, who brings to us decades of work work experience but needed to demonstrate to employers that he had relevant skills applicable to today's workforce. These are the Californians we were created to serve. CalBright goes beyond online courses by removing barriers that often cause adult learners to fall through the cracks because our our approach combines flexible technology with structured human support and human connection.
This model has doubled our one year completion rates while also allowing learners the flexibility to adjust for life's challenges, to take care of a sick child, to pick up an extra shift at work. Our platform connects students, advisors, and data through shared progress dashboards, really personalizing to what each learner needs and allowing staff to intervene early to support. This work also honors CalBright's broader r and d role for the CCC system, testing and scaling new approaches that better serve adult learners across higher ed. And we're seeing meaningful results. Completion rates rose thirty six percent from 2023 to 2024, and of completers, eighty three finished within a eighty three percent finished within a year.
We do not do this work alone. CalBright works with labor, business, education, workforce, and other colleges to provide that value for our students. These are partnerships with companies like Ripen, which embed project based employer work into cyber security and data analytics programs so students enter the job market with experience they can show. It reflects our recent partnership with Western Governors, which creates a degree plus pathway, allowing CalBright learners to accelerate certificates earned towards degree programs, broadening options for future learning and career advancement. And as we sit and we recognize the impacts of things like HR one on our communities, collaborations with Barstow College and LA TradeTech let us test basic needs enrollment strategies across both rural and urban contexts.
Our partnership with SEIU, UHW, and Allied Health, launching a community health worker program, combines a CalBright certificate with a health care staffing cooperative, showing what's possible when new opportunities are co designed. We are grateful for the governor's proposed 38,000,000 in ongoing investment, which recognizes, first, the demand for working age adult from working age adults, and two, the true cost of operating a statewide, fully online competency based public college. This investment allows us to grow our impact statewide and to help more Californians build the skills, secure better jobs, and improve their economic mobility. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to share our progress. Calbright is committed to continuing to work in partnership with the legislature, and we welcome your questions.
Speaker 5
Good. And if you're I'm gonna I'm gonna leave, so I'd like to make a comment.
Speaker 5
I'm Senator excited to hear what you've given us because that's what community colleges are about. Bringing young men and women back into school. Those who are, some cases financially really strapped and but if they're gonna find a future, it's through the community colleges. It's gonna be able to work with these professors that I so love. And I will tell you this, reaching out to them in the communities, whether it be East Los Angeles, Compton, wherever it is across the state, it gives people hope that there is a future, and it starts with education.
So I thank you for that. Madam chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you, senator Achaleta. I'm, you know, I'm really excited to see not just this program's implementation, but to see the rapid growth and think in enrollment. And, you know, this is part of, you know, I think the purpose and the desire in wanting to make sure that we have an online college for the community college system. You know, one of the things that I wanted to ask about that I think is really important as we talk about the investments that we've made into systems like CalPright is really measuring our success and performance, but also measuring it against I don't want to use the term competitors, but I think in any other setting, we would say competitors but measuring it against other online colleges. And so I'm not sure if that's something that we do or produce, but, you know, the cost of a Calbrite degree, right, in an online college versus the cost of an online degree for a private institution.
I know that we've seen, I think, enormous growth and interest in online degrees, particularly for some of our private entities. And some of those entities are not accredited and frankly have, you know, real issues in terms of their ability to actually deliver on their promise of training and educating students. And so I think having CalPrite has become even more important to be able to offer a trusted system, right, and a trusted option to students. So have you done any of those assessments to look at your performance and kind of compare to other institutions?
Speaker 11
Absolutely. I will start up by saying thank you for the question. What has been challenging, no doubt, is we are an open access institution, and part of what we do focuses on taking every learner that comes through our doors. And I mention that because, in particular, as we look to see and to benchmark our offering, which offers, in fact, even greater flexibility than some of the private institutions, some of the institutions that have had a history, especially in this state, of leaving students without the promise of an actual completion and also incredible indebtedness. We are, you know, attuned to to kind of looking at the the ROI at of institutions like that relative to the ROI that we have here at CalBright.
What I will say is notably different about our offering that has been cited to us by our learners as critically important. Really, the reason that college was possible for them is the unique way in which we are leveraging a flexibly paced model. So I would actually love to to invite up Bin Do, who leads our research and development work, to walk through the comprehensive way we looked at learner outcomes, what's driving ultimate success for our learners, how we're spreading that learning across more of our programs to progressively get better at outcomes, to to decrease the cost to the state, but also to provide increased opportunities to to to increase the the effectiveness of outcomes for their learners on their schedules. You know, our learners start 52 times a year, not twice a semester. Our learners have moments in which they're dealing and contending with life's responsibilities, and so they find themselves needing to take a break or a pause.
We never want that to be an off ramp off an complete off ramp off of their educational experience. We want that to just be a pause. And so, you know, in in your district, if a learner started in March and completed in six months, we would treat that as a success. If a student in Member Archuleta's district started in March and ended in eighteen months, we would consider that to be a success because it is driven by their learner goals, the learner time frames, and the reality of their lives. And our job and accountability as an institution is to make sure not only are we showing up for them every day, but that we are scaffolding support for learners personalized to what their needs and available time is.
And I'm going to turn things over to Bindho to walk through our high level outcomes, but also to give a picture of what we're showing underneath. And then, I don't think she has the ready benchmark data that you're asking for, Senator, related to other online and out of state providers, but we will certainly follow-up with that.
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, President Menon. And I appreciate the opportunity to answer these questions here.
Bin Do, Vice President of Research and Development with Calbright College. And earlier, you know, in the opening remarks, Chancellor Christian mentioned just a difficulty in what California's labor market is facing right now as far as, like, the skills gap, something that we certainly are trying to understand and make sure that when CalBright offers our programming to students, students are able to gain those skills to fulfill this gap that California is facing right now. And we do use a number of different methodologies in order to capture career impact and upward mobility post completion at CalBright. And it does include methodologies such as program and service evaluation, ensuring that all of our programs and services provided are being up to standard to the student's expectation in meeting our goals. Regular and ongoing surveys to understand from the student voice what they are hearing, what they are saying.
One time targeted studies. And one of the things that we are really excited about is a recent pilot partnership launched with Credence Credential Engine. Credlens is a national data trust and data platform that is able to provide not only verified employment outcomes and also give us an idea of where our students are longitudinally, in a secured way, completion. And what we are finding, President Menon mentioned a little bit earlier in her remarks, the results are outstanding. The wage differentials that we've been able to track for our completers is roughly 20% increase from pre Calbright to post Calbright certification.
It moves from about $20 an hour to about $25 an hour, roughly 8,000 annually or the cost of a health care premium here in California. As we look at employment rates, we are also seeing very positive returns for our students, for employment rates across all of our programs that we have reportable data that we are seeing eighty percent of our completers employed one year post completion. So very positive numbers here. And they're all entering into various industries aligned to our programs such as IT, health care, business and also higher education, other industries too. The other thing and the last thing that I wanted to share here is we can't disregard the voices of the student themselves and how they have reported and shared their impact.
What we know is almost ninety percent of our completers indicate that they have shared CalBright with a friend, encouraging friends and families to come to CalBright because of the benefit for them. 66% of our graduates say that they've gained in-depth knowledge in their field And then 70% say that they use these skills, tools, and techniques that they learned in CalBright programs for their current jobs.
Speaker 11
Thank you. And just one key takeaway for me in this work and what we've learned over the past several years is it is important absolutely to look at the summative outcome measures or the aggregate outcome measures. What is important and what is the lifeblood of an institution like CalBright is understanding what data is governing the progress of our learners and the momentum of our learners and the skills attainment of our learners. And so, we take a look at what is driving and moving the needle on the indicators in really meaningful ways and how our activities and actions and interventions college, as our support for our learners ultimately aids in their progression. And that's why we're seeing year over year trending upward trajectory on both completion and wage outcomes.
Speaker 1
Well, thank you. And I appreciate that. And happy to hear that you all have created this partnership that you could better track data and outcomes. You know, I remember when CalBright was first being discussed before my time here in the legislature, and folks had a lot of different feelings about it, right? There were people that were very supportive and other folks who were not supportive.
I think, you know, I really want to make sure that this is a system that's delivering on its promise, which is meeting a real need that I think many working class students across the state have for an online college that's affordable and reliable. And so I would love to continue to hear updates on some of that data and our performance metrics against, you know, other institutions. I recognize that in terms of the dollar spent per award completed, that, you know, the dollar spent is still higher than at our actual community college systems themselves. So I think there's some work to do there. And I also want to make sure that students actually know that CalBright even exists.
I think there's a number of students across the state that don't even know that the community college system has an online system. Now, that's where I think, frankly, a lot of these private institutions have spent an enormous amount of money. And so the amount of advertising that goes into these other opportunities that are much more expensive and oftentimes unaccredited is what attracts those students, because they hear a short time to degree, they hear an online model that's going to work with their work schedule, but our community college system is able to offer the same thing. And so I think it's important for us to also think about that, too. How do we make sure that students are informed?
And that means our we say nontraditional students, but we shouldn't even use that term anymore. But that includes folks that are currently working that we need to bring back to our institutions that are looking to update their skills and currently in the workforce. That's very different than, per se, like a high school senior. So would be really interested in seeing what your plan is in order to better reach some of those students because that's going to look very differently than trying to reach some of our high school, recent high school graduates.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the comment in particular around monitoring the ROI and the effectiveness of CalBright relative to its cost and relative to its outcomes. I think the two trajectories we're seeing within the college, and if you're interested in walking further at this, I'll bring our CFO Ed Lee to kind of walk through the parameters here. As we are seeing completers and our rate of completion increase, as we are seeing enrollments increase, the cost we are seeing the cost of our delivery also decrease. And I feel this is really important for us to consider because we often don't look at cost modeling within the context of what it takes to actually deliver an education like this.
And we have spent the past few years really interrogating that question. That is one area where we observe in the L. A. Report it was important for us to provide clarification on, largely because that a number that is cost is a number per student that is going to continue to decline for us. And we are able to do this work efficiently without compromising quality services or the supports our student needs.
And so, this is the benefit of the fact that we have an online delivery system. This is the fact that from day one, what we've built from the ground up has built the infrastructure to allow us to maximize efficiencies in delivery and focus on the questions of how do we actually influence and support something that is adaptable with changing learner needs and also with changing economic needs. So, before I turn things over to Ed, question, your comment is well taken with respect to what folks in our communities find themselves bombarded with when they are faced with advertising targeting the promise of an educational opportunity, far from the reality of what it is. I myself, at the federal level, spent a number of years regulating in this space, in particular, to ensure not just that higher education institutions were held accountable, but that taxpayers and students were protected from institutions like this. And I point that out because we think very carefully about how we deepen our presence within regions and within communities.
And so, you look a list at our looked at the list of our supporters and partners, you'll start to see folks on there that are connected into their communities, whether they be libraries, community based organizations, economic development groups, business groups like the LA Chamber of Commerce, the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, the rural county, rural representatives, county coalition. These are all a core part of doing two things for CalBright. One is ensuring that we are at the table listening and learning from communities directly about how our delivery needs to evolve and adapt to meet local local community needs, regional needs specifically. And also, because it is critically important that there is awareness about CalBright, as you pointed out, and that we are tied into the talent development strategies of regions and of localities. And so, we both sit in those conversations and have been deepening those conversations, especially in recent years, to ensure that as things are shifting in our communities, as there are greater challenges, as you point out, to folks needing to come back to reskill to not be not feel the threat of displacement, in their work, that we are rising with regions to respond, to those needs with the piece of the puzzle we hold, and alongside the critical work that our sister institutions do, in the bricks and mortar setting and in, the the important presence that and role they play in their local communities.
Speaker 12
Yeah. Ed Lee here. Thank you, CFO of Calvert College. Thank you, President Menon. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to discuss a little bit more on the cost per student outcome topic, if you will.
I just want to acknowledge a couple of things here. I think the LEO program number that you're referencing actually just requires a little bit more context here. That number reflects kind of earlier kind of limited completion data during the start of period for Cal rate. I think an example I was thinking of is if there's a new bakery in Downtown Sacramento that's opening, the startup costs are, you know, dollars 500,000. I don't think a reasonable person would say that the cost per customer there is $500,000 right?
So I think there's just additional context required there. Secondly, I would like to just say that, the cost per completion and student outcome on the program completion front has dropped, a staggering 85 from 2021 to 2025, really, in the last four years, which is also during the same period of time in which, again, staggering growth from CALBrate, as has been noted, of enrollment growth of 400%. And when we actually play out the recent trajectory of program completions, it's effectively doubled in recent years, We are seeing that number actually be below the cost per completion in the next couple of years and potentially even sooner. Additionally, I think it's important to note program length and any kind of comparison Calibrates' average program time for completion is roughly eight to thirty four weeks, and most students actually complete within one year. And we compare that to the community colleges, and we just want to make sure that the multi year kind of time period is taken into account, so we're comparing apples to apples.
So I just wanted to provide a little bit more context on that.
Speaker 9
The finance supports this, proposal, and we have no concerns, and I can answer any questions you may have.
Speaker 3
So I think the Calibri team has provided a detailed, overview of their progress during the start up period. So I'll focus my comments on the question for the legislature right now, which is how to fund the college moving forward. The governor's proposal would provide 38,000,000 ongoing on top of the existing 15,000,000 base, so that would bring CalPride's ongoing funding level to 53,000,000. And we do have a couple of concerns with this proposed approach. First, we don't think there's been a clear rationale provided for the proposed funding level of 53,000,000, and we would note that it's about 23% higher than the estimated current year spending level at CalBright.
Second and and more fundamentally, the proposed funding isn't linked to any specific expectations for the college. So under the proposal, CalBright would continue to receive this amount adjusted for COLA moving forward regardless of what happens with its enrollment or its outcomes. As you know, this approach is very different from how the state funds other community college districts under the student centered funding formula. Our recommendation is to transition CalBright onto the student centered funding formula as we think this would better link its funding level to enrollment expectations, provide a known funding rate per student addressing some of these cost effectiveness concerns, and also just treat it consistently with other community college districts. We understand there are some implementation issues that would likely need to be worked through, so one approach you could consider is bringing CalBright onto SCFF beginning in twenty twenty seven, twenty eight and providing a smaller amount of onetime funding in twenty twenty six, twenty seven to sustain services in the meantime.
One last thing I'll note about this recommendation is that all of Calibright's programs are noncredit. And under the student centered funding formula, there actually is no performance based component for noncredit programs unlike for credit programs. In the future, the legislature could consider revisiting this broader approach to noncredit funding under the formula in order to create better incentives for all colleges, including CalBright, to improve student outcomes on the noncredit side. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Appreciate those comments. I'd love to hear actually from the Calvert folks about your thoughts around that. You know, as I mentioned before, I worked on the SCIF, and so part of establishing that was making sure that we had metrics for measuring outcomes, production of ADTs at various colleges, that we'd have a success metric. And we also included an equity metric that, you know, took into account the number of low income students that were being enrolled at an institution because we recognized that low income students, those that are the first in their family to attend college, traditionally needs more supports in order to ensure their success.
And so, what are your thoughts around creating some accountability metrics and incentives similar to
Speaker 11
the SCIF for CalBright? Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. I think we welcome the conversation around accountability to be an ongoing conversation. And I did want to thank LAO for acknowledging the ongoing need for CalBright and the additional funding for the college.
We do think that the college should have comparable funding and investment from the state. And what I would like to note, though, is that we have not historically and have not historically and do not now receive the many funding streams available to other community colleges for ongoing operations, including COLA. We appreciate the value around taxpayer accountability. What the challenge is in the LAO recommendation is that it fails to account for the structural differences in Cal Bright's delivery model that is anchored in our statute. Those are the nuances that were critical to preserve because those are the things that 70% of our learners tell is the reason why college was possible.
So structurally being flexibly paced, 52 start dates a year, flexibility on time frames for completion, scaffolded with student supports, integrated. Not separate categorical programs, not in separate corners of the institution, but integrated into the delivery experience. And the most important one, which is that it is based on mastering skills. Progression, progress, success is based on mastering skills, not time spent in classroom, which is primarily what is measured and funded under the FTES based funding under Schiff. So I do want Ed to walk us through some of the specific considerations and challenges in implementing such an approach with respect to long term funding for the college.
And also, just maybe point out that the state statute, the state law does anticipate that funding can be separately calculated for CalBright, specifically because of its unique statewide online and competency based workforce aligned model, that it is distinctive in terms of the structural change the structural difference between that model and the way the traditional credit based model is delivered.
Speaker 12
Thank you, President Mennon. Thank you for the question there, Madam Chair. You know, as President Mennon mentioned, you know, the SCFF model is it's based on seat time, right, which is how, I think, you know, many of us in this room have been used to, you know, having our educational experience dictated around that. And as a result, really, the funding, that's allocated to community colleges is primarily based on that. So it makes it very difficult for Calibrate to actually participate right now.
As President mentioned as well, state law explicitly allows but does not require SCFF for Calibrate. It does anticipate that the funding could be determined differently because the model is so different. And we are more than open to have continue to have that conversation. And in latest conversations that, you know, we've had with the Chancellor's Office, their team has held the position that the existing attendance accounting methods actually were not designed for CalBright's programs. But, again, we're open to continuing that conversation.
And lastly, you know, Calibrate supports accountability. I think that's not really a question here. It's just more so structurally, how can we ensure that, you know, the appropriate level of funding is received by Calibrate, given that its model inherently doesn't align with the current one that we have right now.
Speaker 11
Maybe just one last takeaway that feels really important in this moment is that, you know, the 38,100,000.0 ongoing proposed governor's budget would allow us to maintain our current servicing levels as the college exits its startup period and exhausts its onetime funds. And I think that point is really important because this is the transition moment for us to move from this kind of startup period into a steady state operating organization, so the scalable institution that we have built. Under that envelope, we are able to continue serving the more than 7,000 learners across 10 programs and also engage in managed growth over the next few years in response to what is demonstrated statewide demand. So, we can see our footprint remaining in alignment with the funding request, while also expanding our reach to additional learners and meeting what is in the pipeline already, which is a number of other programs that were by statutory requirement designed and validated but are in a different sequence of launching over the next couple of years. So, you know, that piece feels very important to acknowledge because we are, you know, like Pinocchio, a living, breathing boy now and require ongoing stable support as every other institution in the system receives.
And then and finally, I think I will also just mention that it has been critically important to ensure that we have support for the continuity of our operations over time as we seek to further reach and meet the needs of learners across California as those needs are changing. So to continue to evolve the model and to continue to deepen the work that we're doing in regions statewide.
Speaker 1
Quickly, please. We just have a couple more items on the agenda. Absolutely. So what were you going?
Speaker 11
I was just going to say, we have been, for the past several years, annually reporting to the legislature much more comprehensively than typically what other districts are responsible for doing. So, we we look forward to continuing to to share annually the data and the information around our outcomes and around our progress as an institution. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1
No, I appreciate that and want to continue obviously a model and metrics that work for you all. You mentioned something earlier, which is that the SCIF doesn't include a measurement of kind of, you know, ongoing movement through the system and rather just like the final outcome. And it does include completion of first year English and first year math as a metric of success within the student success metric. So I just want to highlight that. But can appreciate that CalBright is different as a model, and so we'll need to figure out what that looks like.
Thank you all so much. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item, which is item number six for an update on the Community College Higher Education Student Housing Program. And you may begin whenever you're ready.
Speaker 13
I'll be providing a high level overview of the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program, for the community colleges within the governor's budget. So the governor's budget proposes roughly 11,000,000 ongoing in general fund, which reflects the amount of estimated debt service for the approved, California Community College student housing projects that are expected to be part of the state public works board lease revenue bond sales. And I'll pass it over to my colleague, Ali.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon, madam chair. Ali Wabman with the Department of Finance. I'll just if I may give a brief update on the, 11 projects that are part of the state public works board lease revenue bond financing. Finance continues to work with the chancellor's office and the community college districts to establish the lease revenue bond financing for those 11 projects. At this time, two projects are complete, Sierra and Lake Tahoe, and due to be included in bond sales in the spring and fall of this year.
Three are in construction, Four are in working drawings, and two are in preliminary plans. Happy to take any questions.
Speaker 3
So unlike the other community college issues on your agenda today, this one is supported by non proposition 98 general fund. Currently, the state has authorized a total of 805,000,000 in bond authority for projects supported through the state lease revenue bond. There are a number of projects, two, perhaps three, that have since withdrawn from the program as well as a sum of 81,000,000 that has not yet been allocated to another project. And so at this time, one of the legislature's key questions with this program moving forward is is what to do with the available unallocated funds.
Speaker 3
in total bond authority was based on the amount of funding that legislature intended to provide for community college student housing projects back in twenty twenty two, twenty three at a time when it had a large general fund surplus. As you know, the budget condition has since changed with the state now facing a structural deficit. And so one option you could consider is as projects withdraw from this program, reducing the total amount of bond authority rather than allocating those additional funds to new projects. That option would lead to lower ongoing nonproposition 98 general fund costs moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Chris Ferguson, Executive Vice Chancellor of Finance and Strategic Initiatives. Nearly one three in five of our community college students have reported experiencing housing insecurity, and one in four experiencing homelessness. So with that as a general backdrop, we remain incredibly supportive of affordable student housing on our campuses. We know that this makes a difference in our students' ability to complete their journeys and remain supportive of all the projects that are moving forward and allocating those additional resources toward other projects as well.
Speaker 1
All right. Thank you for that presentation. I know that we have a few of these projects that are currently open to students right now. I just want to know if there's any updates. How are campuses responding to having students live living on campus?
Are the projects fully occupied? How are things going?
Speaker 5
So it's a mixed bag in terms of occupancy. My understanding is that the Sierra project, the Lake Tahoe project, the project that's joint construction between UC Riverside and Riverside Community College District are nearly full or on track based on how they anticipated filling those facilities. I have heard that Napa Valley, I believe in my most recent update, is at about 56% and continuing to increase as well. Sierra, in particular Riverside, in particular Lake Tahoe, absolutely well done on behalf of those campuses. I've seen them.
That's why I note those three. I have not been to the NAPA campus, so I can't speak to that specific project. But we have all indications that, for districts that have done housing before, they are doing well. They know what to do. For districts that it's relatively new, they're still making sure that they have all the policies in place, they have all the Title IX compliance in place, and that they're responsive to their residents.
But so far, so good. You know, certainly, I would say, I think there are a few bumps here and there with individual students. But overall, you know, this is a positive outcome for the system.
Speaker 1
And I know there were two districts that ended up forgoing the state funding that they were awarded. So does the Chancellor's Office have any plans on how they're going to be utilizing and applying some of that funding and the unallocated project funding?
Speaker 5
Yeah. At this time, the authority would lie with the legislature and the Department of Finance, the administration, to give us a signal that they would like to move forward. We have roughly 35 applications in house that were unfunded, so we do have, you know, projects that would be ready to go if there is an interest in moving them forward. Of the two that pulled back, my understanding is one is moving forward with a different financing structure locally, The other, because of leadership changes and other dynamics at their campus, decided that now was not the right time for their particular project. But, again, strong demand is out there.
We don't our office doesn't control the allocation of the resource. We would recommend which projects based on the same criteria that was used for the first 13.
Speaker 15
I thank you. I would just add that at this time, the administration isn't proposing any use of the unallocated authority because it would represent additional general fund
Speaker 1
Great. Well, that's it for this item. We'll go ahead and move on to Issue No. Seven, which is the final item for today. The remaining proposal is, the Governor's budget.
Speaker 9
There are several new proposed investments, but I'd just like to quickly highlight four of them. We're proposing $120,700,000 one time Prop 98 general fund to address deferred maintenance needs across the community college system. We're proposing $100,000,000 as a block grant in Prop 98 General Fund to be used flexibly by the across the system. And then we are proposing $41,000,000 of Prop 98 General Fund, dollars 5,000,000 of which is ongoing for the common cloud data platform to further scale up the development and operations and maintenance of that platform. And then finally, we're proposing $37,000,000 of Prop 98 general fund, 2,000,000 of which is ongoing to support and build upon the existing credit for prior learning policy and program.
Happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 3
of Finance noted, there are many proposals covered in this issue. And in the interest of time, I'll focus my comments on three proposals that we have, concerns about. And that's the Healthy School Food Pathways program, the Common Cloud Data Platform, and Credit for Prior Learning. Regarding Healthy School Food Pathways, this is the first time it's coming up in this hearing, so I'll just provide a little bit of context. This is a set of training programs for k 12 school food service staff that's operated by a nonprofit organization.
The state has provided some onetime funding for this program in the past. This year, the governor is proposing to provide 14,000,000 in ongoing funds, making this one of the few ongoing proposals outside of COLA and growth in the community college budget this year. We do have a few concerns with this proposal. The first has to do with the costs in the Healthy School Food Pathways program. Of the state funds that have been sent to date, the majority has gone toward administrative costs such as marketing and management with a relatively small share going toward direct training.
When we spread those total costs across the number of participants, the cost cost per participant, has been notably higher in this program than in other pre apprenticeship or apprenticeship programs that the state supports. The program has also had some mixed outcomes, focusing on the pre apprenticeship component in particular. Completion rates have been below the statewide average with a relatively small share of completers continuing on to the full apprenticeship. Finally, the program does have a significant amount of unsent state funding, about 27,000,000 as of last month. We think this would be more than enough to cover its costs in 2026, 2027 without an additional augmentation.
And so for those reasons, we recommend rejecting the additional 14,000,000 ongoing for this program. The next proposal I'll discuss is the Common Cloud Data Platform. In short, we think this proposal may be premature. As we discussed earlier this morning, the state provided 12,000,001 time for this IT project in last year's budget act. Those funds were intended to support certain activities through twenty twenty seven, twenty eight.
At this early stage, there is uncertainty around how those previously supported activities will unfold, both in terms of their technical viability and in terms of how many districts will choose to participate. There's also uncertainty around the scope and cost of further activities beyond those already funded. So given those issues, we recommend rejecting the proposal to provide additional funding in twenty twenty six, twenty seven, strengthening of the reporting requirements associated with the funds providing last year, and potentially revisiting this in a future year when more information is available on the outcomes of those previously provided funds. Finally, regarding credit for prior learning, we have a similar set of concerns with this proposal. Last year, the state provided 15,000,000 one time and 5,000,000 ongoing for the same purpose.
These funds also were intended to support activities over the next few years with the chancellor's office reporting on the outcomes of those activities by January 2028. We think it would be premature to provide additional funding for this purpose before information is available on those outcomes. Thank you. I'd be happy to take questions on these or any other proposals covered in this issue.
Speaker 5
the interest of time, I'll be brief. We remain highly supportive of the investments in the Common Cloud data platform, in credit for prior learning, in our apprenticeship pathways, including the Healthy School Food pathways, the investment for deferred maintenance, the investment for the student support block grant. I'd just reiterate what the chancellor did note earlier. You know, there are other asks that our system would have. Most notably, I'd lead with an ongoing COLA for the Student Equity and Achievement Program, additional resources to support professional development around AI literacy, additional resources to support our veteran students who are here today.
And ultimately, I would say on both credit for prior learning, Common Cloud Data Platform, you know, all of the investments are designed those core investments are designed around having students be at the forefront. How can we provide better advising and better resourcing to our students so that we know across campuses what you're taking? Or if we're seeing trends, how can we address those trends? How can we recognize the learning that's already occurred through your professional careers? So they're really student focused.
They're absolutely critical, and, you know, we're funding the work to make that happen. And we have no doubt that 100% of our colleges will ultimately be on the Common Cloud Data Platform and issuing credit for prior learning. We're seeing that now. We're seeing the success, and we'll just say, again, strong support.
Speaker 1
Great. Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of questions, and I recognize we're running up on time here. So I may have questions that I will follow-up with after this hearing. But particularly around the Healthy School Foods Pathway Program, what are the metrics that the administration is using to evaluate the program's success?
And what has been the program's success in placing new food service staff in jobs at school districts?
Speaker 9
Well, right now, the program itself is undergoing an evaluation by a third party. And I think we just received the result of that, but we can share that with you later. And as for the metrics, the program is ramping up and so we're kind of at a transition period and there have been changes and there have been a common, you know, kind of adapting to them such as the thoughts. In the beginning they thought that the pre apprenticeship program was going to involve more outside folks and instead it's involving more folks that are workers that are already involved at the school food program. But
Speaker 5
If I could jump in really quickly with some background. So since its launch in 2022, we've engaged over 80 school districts. There have been nearly 800 pre apprentices engaged, 150 apprentices engaged, 33 fellows. So we're building a strong pipeline of trained professionals, and the program addresses a meaningful workforce shortage in school nutrition programs. So from our perspective, again, at that system level, providing these types of opportunities that are industry connected, oftentimes have apprenticeships or other work based learning opportunities, absolutely critical.
For those that may have seen it at our recent board meeting in February, we did lay out a plan to try and determine how we can advance internships, externships, and these work based learning opportunities for all of our students across California. So, absolutely, this is in line with that overall goal. Thank you.
Speaker 10
And I would Jessica Holmes, Department of Finance, just to add to what Mr. Ferguson said. So, absolutely right on his numbers. Amazing that you have that memorized, Chris. But also would note that by December 2020 the Chef Anne Foundation expects to have 1,500 pre apprentices, three twenty apprentices, and 45 fellows trained are in progress.
Would also note the connection here between investments made on the TK12 side of the budget to increase the amount of freshly prepared foods that are provided in our TK-twelve public schools. This is a key component of helping build the workforce there.
Speaker 1
So in terms of the information that was gathered and that you just shared, was that information gathered is it through surveys, or is it through an actual evaluation of the program and the outcomes?
Speaker 5
I'd have to get back to you on the specific source. This was provided by my team, and I'm not sure if they pulled it from a specific report or pulled it from our existing surveys of districts.
Speaker 1
Okay. Because I know that that's some information that staff has requested. And I know that there's been surveys that have been done, I think, of alumni of the program versus actually measuring those outcomes. And, you know, I think if you're hearing a trend with the questions that I'm asking here of other folks, I want to make sure that we're actually measuring the outcome of the state dollars that we're investing in some of these programs, because I think that that's really critical, and it's important to be able to report back on some of that information. And so measuring and assessing where these folks are going, I think, is helpful.
And making sure that staff has that information in advance is really critical as well.
Speaker 5
Certainly. And just to confirm, staff quickly sent me a note. It was done as part of our memorandum of understanding when the program was established, so that is why we have that information available.
Speaker 1
Okay. The other thing I wanted to ask about is that there's still $27,000,000 in unspent funds that could sustain the program right now. And so I want to understand the administration's rationale for proposing ongoing funding this year rather than waiting for the evaluation report and assessing the need for further funding next year?
Speaker 9
of the reasons that we're requesting additional funding at this time, even though that $26,000,000 hasn't been spent, is the time required to build district partnerships in order for Chef Anne to start begin their process with and they're trying to expand into additional districts. They need advance time and they need to know that they have that money in hand before they, you know, execute any contract with the district. And then also sometimes when they go into these districts, they realize that there's quite a bit of additional infrastructure need that has to happen. And so they would like to have kind of the ability to start doing that process as well before they to ramp up before they start bringing in the pre apprentices and apprentices.
Speaker 1
I think that's it for now in terms of my questions, but thank you all for your presentation. I appreciate it. And having now heard all discussion items, and if there are no further questions, we are now going to move on to public comment. If there's anyone here in Room 2100 who wants to provide public comment on items that were on today's agenda, then please line up. We ask that you limit your testimony to one minute, and I am going to set a timer.
Thank you. And give me one moment while I pull this up. All righty. And let us begin.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Jonathan Lightman, on behalf of the Community College League of California. We strongly support growth of 3% and also endorse allowing credit FTES to be calculated at the higher 3% or 1% average and a lifting of the 10% cap on funded FTES. Our districts worked incredibly hard to regain enrollment and stand by the principle that all students should be funded.
We would like to see the COLA extended to more categoricals, particularly the Student Equity and Achievement Program. We strongly restore support restoring the funds to Strong Workforce Program and also endorse the one time proposals for the Student Services Block Grant, deferred maintenance. And on that note, if there are additional funds in May, we would encourage increasing that amount as the backlog is over $2,000,000,000 Finally, we do object to the settle up proposal that's not within the spirit of Prop 98 and encourage a modernization of the statutory split between community colleges and TK-twelve from the current statutory nineteen eighty nine-nineteen ninety year. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon, Chair Perez. Tiffany Germain with NextGen California in support of the governor's proposed $14,300,000 in ongoing funding for the Healthy School Food Pathway Program. It's the nation's first state and federally registered apprenticeship program for school food professionals. This program trains staff to procure and prepare fresh scratch quick meals while addressing decades of underinvestment and limited career pathways in workforce largely made up of women and women of color. Interest has grown significantly since launch from just 11 applicants of the first cohort to more than 800 in the most recent, demonstrating strong demand and growing awareness of school food careers.
By investing in these professionals, we strengthen both the workforce and California School Meals for All program. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your support for the Governor's proposed funding. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good afternoon. Lizzie Guanzona here on behalf of the office of Kat Taylor and the more than two twenty five organizations that make up the School Meals for All Coalition. In proud support of the Governor's proposal for the California Healthy School Food Pathway Program, this program, as you've heard from others, provides a critical workforce foundation needed to transform school cafeterias from reheating centers into culinary hubs for freshly prepared, minimally processed California grown school meals. By investing in our California workers behind the tray, we ensure that the state's historic commitment to universal school meals delivers high quality, nutritious food that students want to eat. Thank you so much.
Speaker 21
Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. Carolyn Mendoza on behalf of the Chef Anne Foundation. California has set ambitious goals to move school meals beyond a heat and serve model toward fresh scratch cooked meals sourced from local and sustainable producers. Meaning this provision requires a highly skilled workforce with expertise in nutrition compliance, food safety, procurement, financial management facilities and equipment, and culinary techniques. The Healthy School Food Pathway Program was designed to help build that workforce while supporting districts as they modernize their meal programs.
To date, it has served more than 800% participants, equipping them with advanced culinary skills, financial literacy, and leadership training. Evaluations show that 90% of participating districts report improved culinary capacity and 94% report stronger leadership among staff. Continued investment will allow us to scale these results, strengthening the food the school food workforce and ensuring that every California student has access to fresh, high quality meals. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Hello. Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Christina Lawson, and I am the food service director for Western Plaster Unified School District located here in Lincoln, California. And I am also a graduate of the Healthy School Food Pathways Fellowship Program. Our district is also a host site for pre apprentices and apprentices in the Healthy School Food Pathway Program, including both community members and current school food professionals.
Through the program, we have seen growth in our scratch cooking efforts, workforce development, and local procurement supporting our local economy, while creating clear pathway for our team to build skills and advance their careers. Our staff, students, and community have directly benefited from this program, and we respectfully support the Governor's proposed funding to continue to expand this program. And thank you.
Speaker 23
Good afternoon, Chair Perez and members. My name is Michelle Diaz, and I'm a Director of Child Nutrition and a graduate of the Healthy School Food Pathways Fellowship Program as well. I'm a host district for the pre apprenticeship and apprenticeship and have seen firsthand the benefits these programs provide. Through them, I've gained valuable knowledge and skills that have strengthened our school nutrition program and supported my team's professional growth. My community, my staff, and I are incredibly grateful for these opportunities, and we respectfully support the governor's proposed funding for this program.
Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good afternoon Chair Perez and members. I'm Truthi Pradeep, and I would like to say that I'm a full time Las Vegas College student, but under SCIF, I'm not. Under the student funding formula, a full time student takes 15 unit semesters. I'm currently taking 12 units and I'm on campus Monday through Thursday. Taking any more units being would be incredibly difficult for me because I'm working to save money for when I transfer.
I also still use many of the resources on campus. This is the reality for many community college students. They have to work while attending college and don't have the time to take 15 units. But the SCIF doesn't account for them. It only accounts for the nine point two three percent of community college students that take 15 semesters.
This formula fails to recognize the demographic of community college students, and ignores the real circumstances students face, punishing community colleges by limiting their budget. This has made me feel a lot of pressure to transfer before I'm fully prepared because the formula incentivizes community colleges to transfer students out as soon as possible. My education is feeling rushed and compromised because of this. That's why I'm asking for the stakeholder holders to come together next year to create a new budget formula, one that understands the diversity of community colleges.
Speaker 8
Good afternoon. My name is Paula Rose. I am the senior instructional assistant of mathematics and the coordinator of the Math Emporium at Las Positas College. Las Positas College has been denied cost of living adjustments, so we cannot meet inflation costs and our reserves have declined 45%. The math employment classes are full with waitlists.
We need I'm sorry. I lost my place. We're full with waitlists. We are having to turn students away because we need more hours, more help, but we don't have the funding to open more classes, and we're turning away the very students who want to take our classes. We are asking for universal cost of living adjustment.
We are asking that next year all stakeholders be brought together to come up with a new funding formula that is not based on punitive measures. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon Chair Perez and members. My name is Zia Sidhu and I'm a full time student at Las Vocillas Community College in Livermore. And despite us being one of the fastest growing community colleges in the area and having record numbers of enrollment, the current funding formula does not support my peers. Because of the cost pressures that the student centered funding formula places on our college, Las Pocasias is having to cut the budget on the things that students are coming to a college for, classes. It is becoming harder and harder to find classes that are open and has hindered my peers' timeline for transfer.
It becomes challenging for students like me whose goal is to transfer within two years because each semester I'm in fear of not getting into my required transfer courses and having to completely replan my education plan in order to accommodate three years at community college. The student centered funding formula is not student centered And because of this, I am asking to reform the budget formula next year. Thank you.
Speaker 26
Chair Perez, Darby Kernan. On behalf of the California Association of Food Banks, We're here in we are the original cosponsors of the school's Meals for All, and we're in strong support of the governor's proposal for funding Health Healthy School Fund Pathway Program. Millions of students rely on California meals as a consistent daily source of nutrition, but access alone is not enough. They have to be healthy meals. They have to be meals that they'll eat, and this program is delivering that in a new way than before.
Thank you. We ask for your support.
Speaker 27
Good afternoon, chairpresent members. My name is Tyson Thieu, and I'm a student at Las Positas College. I work a part time job, to pay for college, which is a commonality among many community college students. Now, going into community college, I had the plan to transfer in two years. Though, after being placed on the wait list for multiple classes that I need to graduate, I'm now on track to graduate in three years.
Given that community college students also face the same issues while also having other responsibilities, we would truly benefit from more funding and additional resources. This would allow for more time slots for classes, classroom capacity, and increased support for students. My ask is for universal COLA for all community college students in order to accommodate the growth of enrollment at California Community Colleges. Thank you all for your time.
Speaker 28
Hello, Chair Perez. My name is Tala Gander, and I'm a student at Las Positas College. I'm also a worker and the head of my family. Skip rewards those who cannot, can afford to go full time, while holding back students who need the most support. We're maintaining a system that benefits those with resources and overlooks those who are working hard just to stay enrolled.
Students who are eager to learn are being turned away because of limited space and funding. I, myself, had to plead with professors in order to be let into classes due to limited funding and limited spaces. Community colleges should not be penalized for supporting students that are working to survive. Many are taking up to four to five years to transfer from a two year community college, according to LPC's Institutional Planning and Effectiveness Committee, and in hindsight, cost more than a two year student with full support and class availability. I ask for the stakeholders to come together next year to create a new budget formula.
Thank you.
Speaker 24
Anna Good afternoon, Chair. Anna Mathews, on behalf of the California Community College Independence Union. Regarding the Skiff, Hold Harmless Colleges are being asked to increase their enrollment without COLA or growth funding, but, realistically, like these students have mentioned, they're being forced to cut classes and shrink at the expense of students. So, with increasing costs, COLA for hold harmless colleges would be extremely helpful. We appreciate Senator Archuleta's comments on reserves and the inadequate support for part time faculty.
The SCIF's instability is incentivizing colleges to accumulate reserves and let go of part time faculty when times are tough, so we'd appreciate a full reevaluation of the SCIF. Lastly, since other colleges teach online, serve many more marginalized students, meet metrics, and are for resources, we hope to see a reallocation of the 38,000,000 ongoing for CalBright. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Chair. Mark McDonald. On behalf of a number of local community college districts, including, Los Angeles, San Diego, Los Rios, and State Center. We appreciate the governor's proposed investments in community colleges, especially the $100,000,000 student support block grant and the growth. But the bottom line is that the growth is not enough.
Last year, the budget took an unprecedented move of reallocating $200,000,000 in ongoing money away from community colleges. We think that money can be better used to support ongoing student enrollments and the Student Equity and Achievement Program, and would ask for your support in that. Thank you.
Speaker 30
You, Chair. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of a number of statewide community college associations. On behalf of the Academic Senate, we'd like to support the system, ask for growth funding and credit for prior learning, and also align our comments with the previous speaker. On behalf of the EOPS Association, we appreciate the inclusion of the program in the COLA. And on behalf of the MESA directors, we are requesting that they be included in the COLA, the categoricals that are not currently funded.
On behalf of the Association for Occupational Education, we are urging the legislature to restore funding to the strong workforce funding, specifically the $60,000,000 carve out that is currently for nursing. And then lastly, on behalf of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, we appreciate the ongoing funding for basic needs centers and other student support programs. SSCCC is cosponsoring AB 2,540 to expand abortion access at community colleges, similar to SB 24 did for our four year partners, and we encourage funding for that.
Speaker 31
Afternoon. Nick Rommel, on behalf of the California Indian Nations College, here to elevate our budget request of $13,500,000. We do thank the committee for supporting, $10,000,000 last year in one time funding for the college. Continued funding this year is vital for the CNC's prosperity and providing high quality academic programs for native and non native students. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good afternoon. Sabrina Means speaking on behalf of Pasadena City College. Pasadena City College wishes to thank you, Senator Perez, for your continued hard work and support for the college and the region. PCC supports the Governor's proposed 2.1% cost of living adjustment. It also supports the additional funding for enrollment growth and the additional 1% for the twenty five-twenty six enrollment growth for community colleges.
And lastly, PCC supports the $100,000,000 one time increase for the Student Support Block Grant to enhance existing student support programs and career pathways and more. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Jason Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jason Henderson, on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges. The cost of living adjustment must be provided to all districts across all categorical programs to prevent inequities and undermining colleges' ability to keep up with rising costs. An adequate COLA is essential to maintaining operations, regardless of whether college is a student centered funding formula. Additionally, the SCFF requires a comprehensive overhaul that would strengthen the base funding allocation and reduce reliance on supplemental and performance based components that are currently creating instability across districts.
We ask that the legislature provide existing students, funding for core operations. FAC respectfully opposes additional investments in CalBright and Common Cloud Data Platform and instead urges the investment to be appropriated to student services, deferred maintenance costs, and faculty workforce supports, like part time faculty health care and part time office hours. FAC is grateful to participate in the Title IX workgroup, but the reforms cannot succeed without dedicating an ongoing state funding. Thank you.
Speaker 34
Afternoon. Bella Kern, on behalf of Santa Monica College. Santa Monica College supports the proposal mentioned earlier by Chancellor Christian to count the higher of the three year average or the current year enrollment growth for the funding formula. We appreciate the proposal to build upon last year's appropriation for the Student Support Block Grant, and we encourage the legislature to increase that proposal to $250,000,000 in the 2026 Budget Act. Santa Monica College, in particular, is still faced with difficult decisions to continue providing these at risk programs or funding recovery efforts from the devastating Palisades fire last year.
Thank you.
Speaker 35
Good afternoon, Chair Perez. Doctor. Ryan Corner on behalf of Glendale Community College. I am here to express my strong support for the Board of Governors' recommendation for a policy change to the credit FTS to move to the higher of the three years instead of a three year average. The current model of relying on a three year average has devastating impacts on growing colleges.
In the past two years, we have grown 1,800 FTS and yet we are on stability and actually projected to lose money next year while we are growing. We are not alone. Of the 25 districts on stability, half would not be on stability and would be transitioned to the formula if they were funded on their current year actuals rather than the average. This fix would allow us to provide additional support to our students. Continuing the current model will force us to artificially restrict our programs, resulting in lasting consequences in meeting workforce demand and student need.
We respectfully request that you consider this policy change. Thank you.
Speaker 36
Chair Perez, members of the subcommittee, my name is Christopher Elser. I'm a student veteran, and I work in the Veteran Resource Center at Glendale Community College. My path through education was not a straight one. I struggled in school. And when I first started at the California Community Colleges, I lacked direction, purpose, and a real sense of where I belonged.
That changed when I found the Glendale Community College's Veteran Resource Center. The VRC gave me something I've been missing: community, accountability, and support. As Veterans transitioning from military service into civilian life, school can be a hard environment to navigate. When Veteran Resource Centers are or Veteran Resource Centers are not optional, they are essential. They help Veterans succeed, connect, and continue to serve their communities in new ways.
I would like to express my strong support for the Board of Governors' budget request to provide an additional $14,200,000 for our Veteran Resource Centers. Thank you.
Speaker 18
Dear Chair Perez, members of the subcommittee, my name is Joseph Kingsley, and I am from Glendale Community College. I am here to voice my support for the board of governors' request for an additional $14,400,000 for veterans resource centers. As a student veteran, transitioning from military service to college can be a challenging experience. Navigating financial aid and learning the game of a new route learning the rules of a new game can be a jarring experience. But the VRC at my college made that transition possible.
Was able to register for the right classes at the right time, receive counseling, and help with my GI benefits. I was also able to maintain a understanding of the, resources available to me. I respectfully urge the committee to support our request and to continue supporting and investing in the students in the student veterans of California. Thank you for your time, and thank you for support supporting those who served.
Speaker 25
Good afternoon. Rachel Chuklun on behalf of El Camino College. We would like to express our gratitude for the inclusion of the college's interdisciplinary science center project into the proposed 2026 budget allocation for Prop two funding. We look forward to seeing this remain in the final budget act. We would also like to express our support for the distribution of additional one time Prop $98 equitably across the 72 community college districts through an increased categorical COLA, additional one time adult education funding, and one time discretionary grants.
Finally, El Camino College supports the proposal to count the higher of the three year average or the current year enrollment growth for the funding formula mentioned by Chancellor Christian. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good afternoon, madam chair Perez and members. My name is Leonardo Perez. I'm the Veterans Resource Center director. Have the pleasure of guiding it, providing the proper resources our military connected students and their families need to adjust and succeed in their educational goals. However, it's been very difficult as we are understaffed, and this 14,200,000.0 will definitely help our college, and not only our our college, but many of the VRCs that
Speaker 2
understaffed, achieve their goals of providing all the resources, all the assistance that our student veterans need. Thank you for your time, and have a great day.
Speaker 37
Chair Perez and the members of the subcommittee, my name is Marina Virella, and I'm a dependent of an Air Force veteran and the manager of the Student Veterans Resource Center at Diablo Valley College, Region III. I'm here today representing VRC management and staff to advocate for the $14,200,000 budget request to support VRCs and the critical services they provide to our veteran and military connected students. At our center, we are stretched beyond capacity. I am operating with just one staff member while serving over two fifty veteran and military connected students while our numbers continue to increase every semester. We provide a wide range of services, including academic advising, educational and social programming, VA benefits, and the connections to campus and community resources, all while working to implement new initiatives like CPL.
Behind the scenes, I am constantly struggling to secure grants and donations to sustain the programs and the staff that help our students persist and successfully transfer to those four year institutions. This request is not only about expansion, it is about maintaining and strengthening the critical services that already exist and implementing new missions. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Ms. Dear Chair Perez and members of the subcommittee, my name is Maya Mirluna, and I'm from Diablo Valley College, Region III. I'm here to express my strong support for the board of governors budget request to provide an additional 14,200,000.0 for the veteran resource centers. As a student veteran dependent, transitioning from life as a military spouse to college can be challenging. After navigating the bureaucracy and red tape of being able to receive my education, I had no idea about the resources, support, or community that was available to me.
As a dependent, I was extremely isolated in my journey being connected to the service. I was connected to the service but felt invisible within it. I had no idea I could receive education benefits that career opportunities existed for me, and military families also had a network of virtual support. The Veterans Resource Center at my college made that transition possible. Through the VRC, I was able to connect, receive support navigating my challenges and the resources that were available to me and my family.
Alone, I couldn't find the right department, solutions, or individuals that knew the answers to my questions. The VRC and its staff helped me enroll in the program no other department could. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to support the request in investing the success of California student veterans. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Good afternoon, chair and members of the subcommittee. So my first my name is Priscilla Martinez Rodriguez. I am a student, student veteran specifically, of Diablo Valley College. I served in the Marine Corps as a v twenty two mechanic, specifically for the Osprey. And I one of the things that I recognized is sometimes with invisible disabilities, it is quite difficult for students to be able to receive accommodations, And it is something that the members here have worked really, really hard, tirelessly to be able to acquire for my peers and I.
And it's one of the things where members of the service, once they exit the service, are eager to be able to return back to the workforce. So this would be able to give the opportunity to countless members of service the opportunity to be able to find a sense of autonomy, purpose and worth again, especially being able to utilize the money that goes back into us, we get to fill the Communities Cup. So, thank you so much for your time, I hope that you guys really consider supporting this change. Thank you so much.
Speaker 39
Afternoon, Chair Perez, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Allison Chombo. I am from Diablo Valley College, Region III. I am here today to express my strong support for the Board of Governors' budget request to provide an additional 14,200,000.0 for veteran resource centers. As a first generation student and military dependent, I entered college without a road map.
My mother served for over twenty years, yet accessing the benefits that she's earned felt impossible until I found the Veterans Resource Center. The Veterans Resource Center made my transition possible. They helped access my Chapter 35 benefits, academic counseling, tutoring, and provided an array of educational and career opportunities. Because of this, I am earning my associate's degree this spring, holding a summer internship, and transferring to a university this fall. My experience shows how powerful these centers are.
My journey provided proved to my mom that she's has a place once she's ready to enter her educational path. Sustained funding for veteran resource centers ensures that every student veteran across California can receive consistent support. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider this request and continue investing in the success of California student veterans. Thank you for your time and for supporting those who have served.
Speaker 40
Good afternoon good afternoon, ma'am. Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Andres Garcia. I'm a Marine Corps veteran, and I wanna support the Board of Governors' budget request to provide an additional 14,200,000.0 for veteran centers. When I left the marine corps, 6,398 veterans died of suicide that year.
I wasn't a part of them. One of the reasons why is because of my community college. I was able to find stability and not only stability, but I was able to build my future. As senator Archuleta said, preparation is key. With your help and the approval of this request, we wouldn't only support those veterans that chose college and will support the state, but also those who are returning from Operation Epic Fury, the same individuals that are operating in theater as we speak.
Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the subcommittee. My name is Luis Padilla. I'm from the College of San Mateo and a Marine Corps veteran. I'm also a first generation student. My education and professional career started when I transitioned out of the military back in 2009, and I enrolled into a community college.
Much has changed since then. That experience had led me to my current work at CSM and pursuing a doctorate in education leadership where my work does focus on veterans in community college. What the research shows is that about seventy five percent of veterans do enroll. When they come back home, enroll into community colleges with our system leading the way as far as public two year institutions. This means that our college veteran centers are at the heart of veteran transitions back to civilian life.
Right now, many of our student veterans navigate a unique enrollment pathway with fragmented systems. The demand of these much needed services for veterans and the expansion of our veteran support ecosystem has outpaced our current resources and has limited our capacity to build a cohesive, veteran centered model that meets them where they are. I'm here to try to strongly support the 14,200,000.0 investment in our veterans, on resources that have now become vital. Thank you.
Speaker 41
Good afternoon, chair, Perez and members of the subcommittee. My name is Renard Thomas, retired United States Army. I benefited from the post nine eleven I'm sorry, from the GI Bill, from V a r and e, veteran readiness employment, and the community college system. I currently serve as the director of the Veterans Resource Center at College of the Canyons. Represent I also represent Region 6 of the California Community Colleges.
Across our eight colleges and Region 6 alone, we've seen a 34% increase in GI Bill students year over year, a clear signal that demand is growing rapidly, yet our staffing and funding levels have remained largely unchanged since 2017. Statewide veteran resource centers serve over 65,000 students, veterans across a 115 colleges, but current funding supports less than one full time staff per, position per campus, far below the recommended minimum of three staff needed for federal compliance and student support requirements. This gap is not just operational. It is a compliance risk. Thank you for your support, and I support the $14,200,000 moving towards sustainable and equitable staffing.
Speaker 42
Good afternoon. Carol Gonzales on behalf of Long Beach City College and Gabi Lange College, really just to share our appreciation for their enrollment growth dollars and the student support block grant, hoping that makes it through, and encouraging the legislature to use the student housing dollars that have been left over and ideally fund their projects. On behalf of Ed Trust West, a research and advocacy organization committed to dismantling racial and economic barriers, They also wanna elevate their appreciation for the 2.4 COLA, for skiff apportionments and select categorical programs and their enrollment growth dollars. They also support the 100,000,000 student support block grant At a time when rising affordability pressures and federal disinvestments in public education are happening, these flexible resources really enable the colleges to deliver the wraparound services that they need. And finally, on behalf of the Data for the People Coalition, including Address West, they support the statewide Common Cloud platform.
Really, they are just saying that the Chancellor's Office not only is really responsible for that data and seeing that through would really make it a lot easier for colleges to share information. That is really critical. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing as we have no more speakers here in the audience today, this concludes today's meeting, and this Budget Sub one meeting is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.