April 7, 2026 · Budget Subcommittee No 3 Education Finance · 22,084 words · 13 speakers · 221 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Assembly Budget Subcommittee, number three on education finance. I'm Chair Assemblymember David Alvarez, and I welcome you all to today's hearing. Today's hearing is on the California State University system. We will hear about enrollment trends in today's agenda. We will hear about issues related to the campuses, core operations, obviously federal funds and actions that are impacting our campuses, our annual Title IX update, and then also we will hear about basic needs and a recurring theme this year that we've asked all of our segments to present on, which is a common course numbering. So that is the agenda for today. I want to thank you all for being here. We will take public comment at the end of today's agenda. So I will be asking for issue one panel to please make their their way up forward, please, so we can hear an update on enrollment. I think those who have been following this issue know that we had a hearing at this committee in December of last year where we started to discuss this issue in more detail. I want to thank the system for providing some responses to some of the questions that were raised by the committee at that time There has been a follow to that Also as the Budget Act of last year requested there were turnaround plans from campuses that are seeing significant decline of enrollment in students in the CSU system. Those were submitted at the end of last month. I have started to look through those, but we likely may have a future conversation on that, just because I haven't had time to review that with the thoroughness that it requires. But nonetheless, I think we can have a conversation today about enrollment, which is really critical to serving Californians. So we have Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst Office, and the CSU Chancellor's Office here. I think we're kicking it off with the Department of Finance.
Good morning, Chair. Alvarez, Assemblymember Fong, Alex and I have Velazquez with the Department of Finance. As it relates to the California State University's enrollment for the FTE, the 2026-27 Governor's Budget does not propose any changes to the enrollment targets adopted as part of the 2025 Budget Act, nor does the Governor's Budget propose any 2027-20 academic year enrollment targets for the university. This concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you. Thank you. We'll hear from the LAO.
Good morning. Mr. Chair and Assemblymember Fong, Natalie Gonzalez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. As the subcommittee has discussed in previous hearings this year, the state's overall budget condition is tight. One key issue the legislature faces within the broader fiscal context is whether to prioritize funding for enrollment growth at the higher education segments. If the legislature chooses to prioritize funding for enrollment growth at CSU in 26-27, we have three related recommendations. First, we recommend that the legislature adopt a budget year resident undergraduate enrollment target for CSU that is somewhat lower than the target proposed in the governor's budget. Whereas the governor's budget target proposes a 2.1% growth in resident undergraduate enrollment, CSU believes it will fall short of that target in 26-27. Instead, the legislature could set a lower target that is more in line with CSU's projections. For example, it could set a target of 1% enrollment growth. One reason CSU might have some difficulty reaching the current target is due to some soft demographic pressures in 26-27. For example, the administration is projecting that the number of high school graduates at California public high schools is expected to decline in spring 2026, which could impact CSU's enrollment for fall 2026. Second, similar to our recommendation for UC and the colleges, we recommend funding enrollment growth at CSU in 26-27 apart from and on top of any base increase. One key difference for CSU though is that its enrollment remains below its funded level for resident undergraduate enrollment. Lastly, looking ahead to 27-28, we recommend holding CSU's enrollment target flat that year. Given the state is projected to have a large deficit in 27-28, having CSU enroll additional students with the chance that they would not receive additional funding could have adverse programmatic impacts including less course offerings larger class sizes and less academic support services for students Thank you and happy to take any questions at the appropriate time Thank you We from the chancellor office Hello Mark Martin representing
the California State University. Mr. Chair, just wanna make a quick note. This is my first appearance in the subcommittee representing the CSU after working here for the last 12 years. I was really proud and honored to work with you all and your predecessors on bringing more accessible affordable higher education to California. And I'm really excited now to represent CSU. CSU at this pivotal moment for CSU and for higher education in general. CSU is in transition. We are facing significant fiscal challenges, enrollment challenges, federal challenges. And we are on the move, making major changes in enrollment strategies, fiscal strategies, HR, academic affairs, student affairs. And I think the directions that CSU is heading are very much in line with legislative values and priorities. And so I'm hoping we can work together in partnership to serve the state. On to the details. Very happy to talk about enrollment. At its core, CSU's mission is access. So I'm going to briefly highlight where we are on enrollment, including the challenges we are addressing, the reallocation plan that we are implementing, the turnaround plans that were submitted last month, and other major steps we are taking to ensure we continue to serve Californians effectively. Overall, enrollment is strong. After a significant decline, CSU has experienced three consecutive years of strong enrollment growth and expects to reach its highest FTS level at the end of this academic year. We have exceeded enrollment expectations in the Budget Act each of the last three years and remain committed to meeting the state's compact goals with compact funding. A key driver of CSU enrollment is our partnership with the California Community Colleges. I want to point out in slide two of the presentation I gave you. Each year, 40 to 50 percent of our new undergraduates come from a community college. When community college enrollment declined during COVID, CSU experienced a decline within a year or two. As community college enrollment has rebounded, we are now seeing that reflected in increased transfer enrollment, including growth in transfer applications for fall 26. That said, enrollment trends are uneven, as this committee is very aware of. While most universities are growing a subset, primarily in Northern California, to continue to face structural declines, driven in part by regional demographic shifts and reduced community college pipelines. This imbalance creates real impact. Some campuses are seeing strong demand that exceeds capacity, while others are focused on rebuilding enrollment and strengthening their resource base. To address this issue, CSU has taken a balanced and responsible approach. We have implemented a multi-year reallocation plan that shifts capacity and funding to campuses with the greatest demand, while maintaining stability at campuses working to recover. In total, this effort will realign approximately 10,000 FTEs and $89 million in ongoing funding. The chart in your agenda on page 10 shows this plan. In addition we have provided million in one funding to high campuses over the last two years At the same time seven campuses with the most significant declines have developed targeted turnaround plans These plans were submitted to the legislature last month and are part of a larger effort, the Fiscal Health Monitoring Program, and I'll talk more about that in the next item. All campuses, not just the low enrollment campuses, developed fiscal action plans that are now available on our website. These were developed over the last year and involved continuing discussion between the chancellor's office and campuses. For the seven campuses, each campus has unique challenges and individualized plans to recover enrollment. But there are consistent strategies. There's efforts to re-engage stopped out and adult learners. There's an effort to expand access through partnerships, guaranteed admissions, and improved financial aid programs and faster admissions and financial aid notices to students. And there's efforts to strengthen retention and student success, including proactive advising and increased basic needs support. For example, Domenka's Hills has successfully re-enrolled hundreds of students through targeted outreach to students who left the campus. Chico State is expanding degree programs at Shasta, Yuba, and Siskiyou's community colleges to reach students where they are. East Bay is providing free CSU courses to area high school students. All of these campuses have projected enrollments going forward with most expecting to grow and get to or move closer to their internal enrollment targets over the next three years. Finally, CSU is advancing broader system-wide strategies to meet changing student needs. In May, the Board of Trustees will discuss a new strategic enrollment management plan, which will further address reallocation issues and the imbalances across the system, and also provide a system-wide framework and policy around enrollment that acknowledges our new reality. K-12 enrollment is expected to drop by 600,000 in the next 10 years in this state, while at the same time we know we have 19 million California adults without a bachelor's degree, and a lot of surveys show that a lot of those Californians do want an educational opportunity. So we will focus on expanded pathways for working adults, military-connected learners, and those with some college but no degree. This means flexible programs, collaborative degree models across campuses and regions, and using technology to admit students faster, offer more courses in different formats, and monitor student progress to identify academic problems sooner. The board is considering the spring new bachelor's degree models, a bachelor's of education that should help more students get a bachelor's degree and a teaching certificate in four years. Bachelors in applied studies and professional studies that are more flexible and could be utilized for returning students. The bachelor's in applied sciences could allow students to earn or a path to a 90 unit bachelor's degree instead of the more common 120 units. In short, CSU is both growing and adopting. We are serving more students, addressing regional challenges directly, and modernizing how and where we deliver higher education. We look forward to continue to work with you in partnership to better serve the state. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much to all three of you. Why don't we start with the Legislative Analyst Office first for my questions. I know I've mentioned this in the hearing, the very first hearing we had, and something I want to bring up again, and that's the issue of the budget allocating for growth versus base that you've raised in your analysis before, and it's also cited in our reports today. and I'm trying to get a better understanding of what that would look like you mentioned that historically that's been the practice of the legislature to do so and and I'm now looking on page 11 of the public agenda where the LAO recommendations are cited the second point that's that's cited here is providing enrollment growth funding separately from base increases. I'd like to hear more about what that would mean, historically what that's meant, and how that would work.
Yeah, happy to provide some context on that. So as of now, currently in the governor's budget, CSU would get a 7% base increase, and they would have discretion in how to spend that funding. What has been done in the past is sometimes with the base increase, there's the base increase that CSU can use for spending such as salaries, financial aid, other things. But then there is a portion of funding that is given specifically for enrollment that is separate from that base increase that would go to other spending priorities. And the way that that amount is calculated is it's using the state's share of the marginal cost rate for students. So in 26-27, that marginal cost rate is around $11,000. So using the way that would be calculated is taking that $11,000 or so and multiplying it by the enrollment growth target. and that would be the amount of funding that would be set aside for enrollment specifically. And historically, we've allocated the marginal costs for growth, but also there's been base increases in addition to that.
Correct. Have there been trends in terms of what that base increase has been? I know that the compact era is maybe a little bit different, but prior to that?
Um, prior... We have one of your colleagues coming up who may be able to provide some assistance on that.
And I don't know if, you know, for K-12 and community college, COLA is often referenced. There is no equivalent per se, but maybe there's been some similarities?
Jennifer Pacella, Legislative Analyst's Office. So yes, we keep track of it over time so we can go back a few decades and see what the state has done. When the state does provide a COLA, 5% is roughly what it does. Now, because of the ebbs and flows of the state budget, the recessions and the recoveries, it's very volatile. So there's years where there's been reductions that are double-digit reductions and years where there's no increase and years where there's double-digit increases. Over the past 10 years if we just look at the average annual rate of increase recognizing COVID there was a reduction Other years there were more than 5 increases but the average annual rate has been 4 So even though it different from the K statutory COLA when you compare the historical averages they not too different
Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. And so what would that mean for this year if we use, let's just say the average, and I know it's tough. you probably haven't calculated this, but an average base increase of 1% less than the amount that's being provided, what would that mean? And then if we did it based on the marginal costs you cited, the anticipated growth is only roughly 1% of students. And so what would that mean in terms of funding if we were to approach it that way? One option, which I know we also may discuss in issue two, but is we providing a base increase for CSU that is closer aligned to inflation using the state and local price deflator.
So as of now, that is 3.78%, so closer to a 4%. So that would reduce the base increase by about half. and then adding the funding on top for enrollment. We haven't done the exact calculation, but we are working on some calculations that look at the different options that we're happy to send over.
Okay, yeah, that would be helpful. Thank you.
You could also think about it, just like a 4% COLA and 1% growth. It's still 5% increase going to CSU. It's just earmarked a portion for enrollment growth.
Right.
It's just a different way of seeing what Natalie's.
Right.
Also, if I may add, Chair, Alex and I, with the Department of Finance, while the LAO just mentioned it, it would be a 5%. That's almost equivalent to the 5% that's being proposed this governor's budget. The difference of the 2% is the compact from last year, so that's why you get 7%.
I was about to ask that. So you would basically be providing the same amount of percentage or potentially reducing last year's investment even further. Because now it's just 40% or 60% versus 100% of year four funding. Yeah, I was going to ask that given the actions last year, how does a 2% above the 5%, if we were going to take that approach, where does that leave things overall? overall, and maybe this is something to come back with over the last couple of years, what have we cumulatively done or not done related to what could be considered a base growth and an enrollment growth, and making a comparison would be helpful for us. Appreciate that.
Mr. Chair, could I just note that this period of the compact funding, particularly for the first three years as we got the 5% increases, there was a cut in year three, a one-time cut that was restored. But that kind of out-year planning allows us to grow enrollment, to hire more people, to address issues. With this disruption in the current year, we kind of now find ourselves in deficits. I mean, we had deficits before, but I just would encourage kind of out-year discussions we do, it's very helpful to have kind of a signal as to where we're going. And these 5% increases have really allowed increased enrollment, increased employee compensation, allowed campuses to plan ahead And when we get these disruptions it very difficult But we thankful for the current proposal and think this will allow us to kind of get back on track and continue growing and making changes.
Yeah, I would agree with that. With the one thing to note, which is that we cannot predict everything in the future. and what we kind of are anticipating over the next couple years are not such great years. And so if that growth did occur, then how do we not cause a disruption to the system when the funding is not there in the out years, given the structural deficit to the budget? And how do we respond to that responsibly to not cause students any harm? And I think that sort of transitions to sort of the conversation on enrollment where I think at least historically short term, that type of adapting to those realities has not really occurred in the system. And now we're talking about potentially making more difficult choices because over the course of multiple years, enrollment at several campuses, the seven in specific, has been on a very, very clear decline. Not even marginal, but double digit plus. And I'm thankful that now we're seeing with the plans a lot more data as to how to address that. But that's a situation I think we don't want to be in for the whole system in the next couple of years. So I do want to talk about the enrollment issue. Like I said earlier, at the onset, we likely may have to have a separate conversation given the level of detail. I will acknowledge, as I've pulled up here on my own device, the 130-page document that was submitted to the legislature per the Budget Act, which I think provides a lot of transparency in terms of what's happening at these campuses, which I think is very helpful for us. And again, I think really merits a further conversation. I don't want to not spend the time. I think we should. So I'll ask some probably general questions, and then, again, we'll find some time to talk a little more. I guess the first question is maybe start from our way from the end, work our way backwards. Out of the seven turnaround plans from the seven campuses in double-digit percent declining enrollment, It appears that all but two of them believe that by the year, I believe it's 2031, enrollment will be meeting the targeted enrollment that the system has identified. Let me ask this question first. who determines the targeted FTES at the CSU in the out years? Is that done at the Board of Trustees levels, the Chancellor's Office, the campus themselves? How does this happen?
Yeah, I appreciate that question. These are internal enrollment targets by campus determined in conversation between the Chancellor's Office and the campuses over the years. and so that conversation is sort of always happening And yeah so it sort of So just because I on this page I don even know where this discussion is going to lead and if it's going to be illustrative or not. But like Chico has, and I think it's the same with all of them, so it doesn't really matter. The 2025-26 enrollment target continues to be the enrollment target throughout the five-year period. And again, I think that was the same with all the others. Let me see if I can scroll real quickly to a different one.
And so I'm just wondering why – so is that an annual conversation in terms of targets? When do those decisions get made on that?
Yeah, and I will note that these turnaround plans, the campuses were – did develop these. They were asked to be fairly conservative in terms of how much state funding would be projected in the out years. and they were asked to be realistic in terms of how much enrollment they can regain. And so, and these targets are based on funding. I mean, I think what I would say is that going forward, you know, enrollment growth funding, and this has been the case the last few years, too, has gone only to the campuses that are sort of over-target or showing sustained demand. And so that is, you know, these are determined each year, but there is sort of a longer-term discussion always going on as well as terms of where they're going.
Okay. So the 26, 27 through 29, 30 enrollment targets, it looks like everybody just used their 25, 26 number just for simplicity's sake.
Yeah, I think the intent is to get back to these, you know, these are all campuses that are obviously under their targets. Yeah. So now that we've established that, to the question that I, excuse me, led with, which was, I think all but two, this is more of a summary and ask you to provide more context to this, by the year 2930, believe with these plans that they will hit their resident targeted enrollment.
Yeah, they'll be very, if not hit, very close.
Obviously, one of the things I will note about these plans is that they will evolve, too. There will be kind of continual discussions. But, yes, the intent here is to get these campuses back. And I think several of them, Chico is a notable one, that are already growing. Most of them are growing this year, and they have significant plans to continue that growth over the next few years. Yeah, and the two that won't are Sonoma and San Francisco.
That's the summary version. Again, I think we'll have a follow-up because I would like to get into some of the weeds on some of this. For example, I'm looking now at Humboldt, which somehow is going to go from 5,100 to 7,600, a growth of 2,500 students in a matter of five years. That sounds a little bit ambitious, which is good, but not sure it's realistically aligned. So, again, probably worth further conversation. I want to ask you, though, about the, you mentioned there's a board meeting in May where there will be a conversation on enrollment. And there were some things I really, I think you know this, was really excited to hear about. A 90-unit degree potential conversation with applied science degrees and other degrees, looking at doing things a little bit differently. You talked about military servicemen and women, which I know a lot of private institutions target significantly and our publics don't as much. So those all seem to be great strategies. The use of technology. what do you anticipate the conversation in May to be about, given that the system a couple of years ago had an enrollment reallocation plan that has shifted and has not been really, maybe it's been a guiding document, but it hasn't really been applied in terms of the declining enrollment and the associated funding by campus that was going to be shifted.
That has changed over time. What is the May board discussion going to be about? Well, I would, I guess, push back a little. I mean, we have this reallocation plan that's in current year, second of three years. the plan is to continue that in 26-27. That has shifted, will shift $90 million, 10,000 FTE. So it has been enacted. The campuses that are sending money away have felt that dramatically. I mean, it's been a significant impact on those campuses. So, but we acknowledge that there will continue to be imbalance here. And I think the discussion around a system-wide enrollment plan is the right one to have at this time. We are, for the last, you know, I think several decades, CSU, most universities were growing. They obviously were different sizes, and some of them had more growth in some years and different. But we are now in a situation, and frankly, the community colleges are somewhat in the same situation, where we definitely have very different circumstances for different universities. And so there will be, I can't tell you exactly how this plan will play out, but that is a big part of it, is we need to get a handle on the system-wide enrollment and how to work as a system and make sure resources are allocated in the right places. But we obviously need to support more growth at the high-demand campuses, but we also need to help the campuses that have had these declines recover and serve more students, serve students in different ways. a lot of those programs, whether they're a BA program at a community college or out in the community or working to attract more students, that's expensive. I mean, that takes resources. And so we, as a system, I think the idea for the strategic enrollment plan is to evolve the system to serve more students in different ways, but also to kind of help balance the needs of some of the campuses and universities that have had significant challenges with the needs of the campuses that are seeing really significant demand.
Yeah. Well, I'm definitely looking forward to that. I just want to make sure there's clarity, though. The enrollment reallocation plan that I was referring to did talk about you know I think it was a 10 campuses with not meeting their targets by 10% were going to see, I thought, 5% reduction. And in some years, that reduction has not occurred. In some years, the reduction has been less. And so, and I don't know that the board ever saw that, but I remember coming into this role actually being very excited about that conversation because it meant that we were right-sizing, that we were ensuring that where there's opportunities to educate more Californians, we would do that. And maybe reality hit and it was not thought out as well as it should have been when it was presented, but that has not taken shape.
What has, I will acknowledge, occurred is $20 million in 24-25 reallocation to about 10 campuses with growth. Actually, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven campuses with growth. In 25-26, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine campuses with growth. Total of $40 million, as you stated in the testimony.
You just mentioned, though, something that I may have missed and not caught on. you said total of $90 million. Is that prior years or are you talking about
$26, $27? Yeah, there's two things going on and I guess I will just want to note that we developed this three-year plan and you're right, it has changed a little. One thing that changed is we didn't get any new ongoing general fund in the current year and so I think there was some recognition of that. So there are two things happening. There is about $90 million or $89 million in ongoing funding that is moving from some universities to others. There is also a $40 million in one-time funding that has gone to the high-demand campuses. So there's two pieces to this reallocation plan. And again, I think we're really trying to support the high-demand campuses and allow them to grow, but also we need to be cognizant of the challenged campuses and the resources they need to recover. And so this has evolved over time, but the end result is $90 million in ongoing funding and $40 million in one-time funding.
That's right. So $40 million one-time, $89 million in ongoing, with $26, $27 still to be determined.
Well, there is a plan. The 2627 targets and this plan that you see is in place and has been communicated to universities that this will be happening. You might find the figure at the bottom of page 10. It might help disorient the conversation where CSU is discussing the savings each year.
Right. And the $89 million is the three-year total for $26,000, $27,000, if I'm reading this correctly.
It's a shift of $25-some million.
Right. So, thank you. That's below the $40 million, the one time that occurred. That's at the top of that page.
And then the ongoing would be inclusive of a still-to-be-approved budget for $26,000, $27,000 by the trustees.
Okay. Yeah, and I would just note that you can look at this chart and see that some of these campuses that were, you know, losing funding are not in 26-27.
And that I think an indication that efforts are working Some of these campuses are growing Yeah And they you know much closer to their target than they were Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Oh, just the final question. Will the May discussion of the Board of Trustees occur before the adoption of the budget by campus? or is that at the same meeting?
Well, the way our budgeting works is, I mean, these targets have already been sent out to campuses for 26-27. For admission purposes. Yeah. There is a final memo that goes out in July after the budget is, after we know exactly how much funding there is, that distributes funding for enrollment, for facilities, for insurance costs, et cetera. And so that is kind of the final word, I think, on things. But these enrollment targets have been already disseminated to universities and are the plan for 26-27.
Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions. We have Mr. Fung.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the panelists for the updates here on enrollment. I wanted to uplift a possible opportunity as well. You know, the community colleges have done tremendous work around dual enrollment programs, the K-12. For the CSU system, is the CSU system engaging in these opportunities between K-12 and CSUs, and what those opportunities look like, and is it going to be like a system-wide model?
Yeah, I really appreciate the question. Several things we're doing both at the K-12 level and at the community college level. There are several campuses that are offering courses to high school students either at high schools or on campus with the idea, obviously, that we're trying to offer free courses, get students some college credit, and then the intent, obviously, is that they would enroll at the university. So that's happening at East Bay and Sonoma in particular, but I think several other campuses as well. In addition, we do have a dual admissions program with community colleges. It's called the Transfer Success Pathway. It's launched in the last few years, and that does allow students to be essentially guaranteed admission to a CSU as they start their community college career. And we're seeing a lot of encouraging signs here. And the basic concept is that we want to make sure the community college student has much more interaction and connection with the CSU from the very beginning of their start at the community college through technology, through advising, through more clear pathways. And in particular, we're seeing a lot of transfer around business and engineering. which are obviously two very significant state workforce needs. And this program is really working for those kinds of students. They can see much more clearly what they need to do at the community college and then what they'll need to do at the CSU. And so we're expanding that program throughout the state and very excited about it.
And thank you for that context. So in terms of that follow-up, will there be like a system-wide MOU or is it just more a peaceful approach for campuses?
It is yeah it is both system and campus by campus so I think there kind of both in play The chancellor office is playing a large role in developing this program and then the universities are connecting with their community colleges for these kinds of things We have 390 partnerships with community colleges and high schools across the state that are around these kinds of programs, whether that's dual admissions or bachelor's degree programs at community colleges, that kind of thing. So I think partnership is at the heart of what we're doing and a lot of the strategies around enrollment growth.
Thank you so much for the context. And now just to follow up on a couple of the questions that the chair had asked as well, in terms of some of the declining enrollment campuses, such as Sonoma, San Francisco, in terms of the turnaround plans for the next few years, How do we continue to see opportunities to boost enrollment at the declining enrollment campuses?
Yeah, and I'll just note, I think most of the campuses are in Northern California. And if you look at the community college enrollment in those areas, San Francisco Community College, Santa Rosa Junior College, Peralta Community College, those are the college systems that have not recovered. And we have the CSUs there, too. So, again, sort of emphasizes this really strong connection between community college and CSU. And so, but I think sort of three major strategies for enrollment growth at all of these campuses. One is these kinds of partnerships with high schools and community colleges. Guaranteed admissions, we haven't really talked about that yet, but that is, was begun a few years ago, is now the law, thanks to Senator Cabaldon's bill last year. So students who are qualified for CSU are getting letters saying, you are admitted. Congratulations. So we're being very proactive, and I think that's showing some signs of success. I think there's a lot of efforts on campus to bring more students in, more summer programs for students who are coming in to get ahead and take several units, lots of retention strategies to make sure we keep students once they're in, early advising, intrusive advising, which is a lot of campuses now have the technology to be able to tell when students are in trouble in a class and allow them access to tutoring and advising and that kind of thing. So we believe retention is a big part of enrollment as well. We do have a goal in our strategic plan to continue to increase graduation rates. That will obviously increase FTE. So I think there are kind of every single university has multiple strategies going forward to increase enrollment, serve more Californians, serve more adults.
I appreciate that context in terms of retention and reaching out to folks who have maybe disconnected from the university as well, I think, to be proactive and to reach out is critical. We're actually going to hear one of those types of bills this afternoon as well from one of my colleagues to really how we can continue to promote and incentivize and to really bring back our students to the CSU system. So I appreciate all the contacts and updates here. And thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Patel.
Hi. Thank you for your presentation and your comments today. I was taking a look at the LAO's input as well. Questions around your turnaround plans specifically. Some of the things we can control for, but many of the things we can't, like we can build degree programs that are going to keep up with jobs of the future that are maybe AI protective kind of career pathways. We can teach children around critical thinking or students, I should say, around critical thinking and problem solving, where the human aspect of it is going to carry them through. But there are some things we just can't control for, like declining population, declining birth rates, higher cost of living in certain areas. So in your turnaround plan, how do we address that?
We can't make students appear where they don't exist. Yeah, I think, and there are a couple campuses that will do everything they can to grow enrollment, but they are engaged in right-sizing their campus in specific ways. San Francisco has several thousand fewer enrollments than they did sort of pre-COVID. And the Bay Area birth rate, the K-12 enrollment, the community college enrollment are all challenges that have been difficult. So San Francisco State has had, through attrition and early retirement programs, downsized. They've also added, though, faculty in nursing, computer science, engineering. So I do think we feel like we can offer more attractive programs that fit state workforce needs and really find adult learners that we haven't necessarily always found in the past. So I do think that some of these campuses are gonna be challenged to ever get back to sort of where they were 10 years ago or something like that. But I think they have plans to grow and to serve different students in different ways.
Yeah, so I think what we're looking at is not only right sizing, but shifting program availability, degree programs to make sure we're keeping up with projected workforce needs in the area. those changes aren't always easy because that means shifting which faculty are teaching on a certain campus versus in a different system. So I just wanna acknowledge that. I also wanna acknowledge that it takes a certain amount of operating budget to just keep a campus open that is independent of the number of students that are on campus. So how are you addressing those needs as we look at declining enrollment at certain campuses?
Yeah, I really appreciate that question because that is, I think, obviously, we're focused here on enrollment and enrollment funding, but that is not the only driver of campus funding. We distribute funding to campuses based on facilities, utility costs, which are different by region, insurance premiums. A big one is our institutional aid. The state university grant program is more than $800 million. That is distributed to campuses based on student need per campus. So there's, I think, a lot of things that go into running a campus that we will always be grappling with. And enrollment is one, but it is certainly not the only thing. We want to make sure we are serving every single region of the state in an equitable way. And that does mean that per student funding I think some of that is in your agenda is going to be different by campus Smaller campuses do not enjoy the economies of scale of larger campuses And that sort of always going to be the case So we are always trying to balance the needs of each university each region to make sure that we are really truly meeting our mission to serve the entire state. Yeah, thank you for that. And another follow-up question.
As we look at those CSUs that do have declining enrollment, and we look at some perhaps that are bringing in students that are not from California. And so looking at non-resident students that are coming in, has there been any plans around, say, San Francisco State, trying to do some recruitment outside of state? Not just for the wonderful opportunity of being able to study in San Francisco, which is a flagship city within the state of California, but also as a way of increasing enrollment, invigorating a campus once again.
Yeah, and I think 95% of our students are Californians, and I think we're very proud of that and will continue to always be California first. But yes, I do think there are several campuses that are looking in that direction. San Francisco in particular, we're aware that through the GI Bill, veterans receive a much higher housing allowance in the Bay Area than they do anywhere else in the country. And that campus is looking at guaranteed admissions for veterans, doing a lot more military outreach to try and bring students in through that, because we do know that obviously housing is expensive in San Francisco, but the GI Bill does try and address that. So, yeah, I think there are plans throughout that. throughout campuses to try and increase slightly non-resident enrollment.
Thank you. Those are my questions. Thank you. That, excuse me, reminds me, when we had our teacher pipeline conversation, we had a professor from the School of Education at San Francisco State who stated, and I want to just acknowledge that, the demand for her program was pretty substantial, but funding was not available to fund those slots. And so it obviously caught my attention given enrollment issues at San Francisco State that clearly when you've got a program that is in high demand and working, campuses should be adapting and responsive. And I wanted to just acknowledge that testimony from that individual.
I would note that San Francisco State admits almost all of the teaching candidates that apply and are qualified. I do believe they have plans to increase special education in the next few years. But I do think that campus in particular is doing a very, you know, very looking at this very strategically in terms of where they need to grow, where they need to may have lesser demand. But it is a difficult issue, as you might imagine, on every campus to try and shift resources to different programs.
But but they are doing that. Right. OK. Well, I think this conversation will continue. But Dr. Pichai, I think, has one more. Yeah. Sorry.
I had a lingering thought around dual enrollment and bringing college opportunities to our students. And as we look at mounting pressures of our young people and their mental health, is there any concern around escalating or increasing college courses for 14 15 olds when they just trying to balance their daily lives maybe participating in sports or fine arts at their school sites Are there any concerns around that? It's a very good question. I think, I believe that the programs that we do offer for high school students are free to the students or very minimal administrative fee. And I think they're intended to kind of give a flavor of college, but I do, excuse me, I do hear you on that. I have two kids in college right now, and it was very stressful in high school trying to figure out where to go, what to do. So I'm not sure I have a very specific answer for you, but I do think we are trying to provide some information and experience with college at an earlier age so that when they do come to campus, they are a little more comfortable with where they are and their surroundings. They know the campus layout and that
kind of thing. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I hear you, but we do know that access is not even. transportation is not guaranteed and we also know that college faculty aren't necessarily trained in the same way to meet the needs of young people as high school educators are and so there's just a little bit of I'm just it's just a lingering question out there it's not a criticism I'm still very supportive of dual enrollment opportunities just want to make sure we're not increasing downward pressure onto our high school students and not allowing them to fully experience high school life as well. I hear that. Thank you. Thank you to the panel. We'll hold the issue open, hear back from the LAO on those questions, and like I said, likely another hearing on the enrollment issue. Thank you to all three of you. We will move on to issue number two. I think we may have the same panel for this, so we'll kick it off with the Department of Finance. Once again, for the record,
Alex and I have Lasquez with the Department of Finance. As it relates to CSU's core operations, for the governor's budget in 2026, the governor's budget provides ongoing general fund support equal to a 5% increase for CSU in 2026-27. This represents the final year of the multi-year compact and the fifth year. For CSU specifically, this represents $264.8 million ongoing general fund. In addition, the governor's budget maintains ongoing general fund amounts adopted in the 2025 Budget Act that partially covered the fourth-year compact, representing $100.9 million ongoing general fund. Additionally, for the fourth-year compact deferral, the one-time, consistent with the 2025 Budget Act, the governor's budget maintains the deferral of the one-time fourth-year compact from 2025-26 to 2027-28. Lastly, the 3% one-time base payback, the governor's budget It does propose to delay the 3% base payback and additional fiscal year from 2026-27 to 2027-28. This concludes my remarks and I'm happy to take any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you. LAO, please.
Thank you. Natalie Gonzalez with the Legislative Analyst Office. We have four recommendations regarding the proposed base increase for CSU and a final recommendation relating to COMAX. First, rather than providing CSU with a 7% base increase under the governor's budget, the legislature could consider providing a smaller base increase to CSU that is more aligned with inflation. Alternatively, the legislature could decide to provide no base increase, and this option does the most to help the state manage the projected out deficit Even without a base increase CSU core funding would still increase by about 4 largely due to increases in tuition revenue. As a result, CSU would still have some funding to address some of its spending priorities. This increase is also aligned with CSU's average base increases over the past 10 years. These alternatives are intended to help the state contain its ongoing spending, given it is projected to face large deficits in the out years. Second, we recommend the legislature adopt provisional budget language earmarking a share of any approved base increase for CSU for capital renewal. Under the governor's proposal, CSU has total discretion in how to use its proposed base increase. CSU is carrying an estimated capital renewal backlog of of 8.6 billion. If funding is not directed to address this backlog, more projects will be delayed and costs will increase as building components degrade further. Therefore, targeting some funds towards facilities will ensure that CSU undertake some of its capital renewal projects which would help prevent more costly repairs in the future. Third, we recommend retiring the payment deferral as soon as one-time funding becomes available. As noted in 25-26, the state deferred a $144 million payment to CSU until 26-27. Under the governor's budget, this payment is deferred again to 27-28. We recommend retiring the deferral to return CSU to its regular schedule of payments, eliminate the associated state debt obligation, as well as reduce out-year budgetary pressures. Fourth, we recommend removing the out-year funding commitments to CSU. The governor proposes providing CSU with $252 million one time in 2017-2018 and $151 million ongoing funding in 2018-2019, even though the state is projecting budget deficits in those years and there is no specific funding plan in place in how the state will cover those out-year commitments. Rather than making those commitments in advance, given that they might not be able to be honored due to the projected budget deficit, the legislature instead could determine in those years how much ongoing support it can afford to provide to CSU in light of fiscal conditions and competing budget priorities. Finally, we recommend the legislature avoid getting entangled with new compacts moving forward. Though compacts are intended to provide CSU with predictable funding levels, in practice CSU's funding levels are determined by actual budget conditions. As a result, the most recent compact has contributed to complex budget actions that have lacked transparency and accountability. Instead of endorsing compacts, we recommend the legislature make its funding decisions for CSU annually based on the best information available at the time. Thank you and happy to take any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you. CSU.
Mark Martin for the CSU again. I will provide a brief overview of CSU's current fiscal condition, key challenges, actions underway to address these challenges, including updates on our system-wide fiscal health monitoring and shared services initiative process, as well as the governor's budget proposal and the proposed use of our funds. CSU is heavily dependent on state funding. Nearly 60% of our core operating budget comes from the state. 76% of CSU spending is employee compensation and 10% is financial aid. So I just want to note that when we have tight budgets or have to make reductions, it's really difficult to do that without affecting employees' or students. State funds and tuition per student, I do have a slide in there, have fluctuated over the decades, but I did want to note that spending per student has remained essentially flat for the last 20 to 25 years. This is despite dramatic expansion of student services that we now provide, including basic needs and mental health, high-cost STEM and health care programs that we're trying to expand to address the state workforce needs. So we are doing more with the same, is how I would put it. After three years of compact funding, last year we received this reduction to our ongoing base budget. At precisely the same time, enrollment was growing and costs were rising. Simultaneously, we faced a significant cut in federal funding. So entering 2526, we faced about $165 million gap between expenses and revenue. The chancellor's office took an 8% cut. The campuses took a 1.8% reduction. The state loan we did take out, we're very thankful for that and appreciate all of this committee's work on saving us from what was a far worse fate last year at this time. We took that loan out and it's been earmarked for one time employee compensation increases. Campuses are doing a lot to reduce costs or pursue cost-saving measures. Hiring freezes, elimination of vacant positions, voluntary separation programs. We're redesigning academic programs, including eliminating low-demand offerings. 218 programs were suspended or discontinued this spring. At the same time, we added 40 that were mostly STEM and other high-demand programs. Cal State Long Beach now manages HR for the chancellor's office in Cal State Monterey Bay. Sacramento State and Stanislaus State share a CFO. So those are kind of examples of things we're doing on a campus level. System-wide efforts are many, and I know a lot of this or some of this was discussed in the December hearing. The integration of Cal Maritime and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo is underway. That's eliminated seven high-level administrative positions and will lead to savings. The San Francisco Bay Area Network allows East Bay, Sonoma State, and San Francisco State to all share a lot of back-office administrative services. They are projecting a 9% savings in the current year with a goal of 15% to 30% savings on those activities in the out years. The Shared Services Initiative Project has allowed the system to do a lot more as a system to save costs. CSU Buy is a new procurement system that was launched in January that allows every university to find the best deals or collaborate with other universities on procurement. We are consolidating cybersecurity efforts and benefits administration through that program. And then the fiscal health monitoring program, which was part of the turnaround plans, but this is a program that's impacting all universities. Every single university had to develop a fiscal action plan in conversation with the chancellor's office that addresses enrollment and fiscal issues, auxiliary issues, other pressures. and this is now in place everywhere and will continue to be a program where we can monitor the fiscal health of every single university All of those plans are on our website by the way not just the seven turnaround plans So we are facing serious fiscal issues, but we are taking them on at scale. Two other quick challenges. Federally, we did have about 215 grants totaling 161 million cut. These are not abstract research funds. they really directly impacted students. There are several teacher pipeline programs that were unfunded, student stipends for applied research. And I would be fired if I did not mention facilities. We are really want to stress this year that we have a significant facilities issue. The LAO mentioned $8.6 million deferred maintenance backlog, including more than $2 billion in health and safety issues, electrical infrastructure, inadequate fire hydrant pressure, outdated lab fume hoods. We've not had a higher education bond in 20 years, Mr. Chair. I know you're very aware of this, and we're hopeful to continue working with you on that issue. We also have $31 billion in capital outlay plans, including several buildings that are STEM-related, health care-related, buildings where we have healthcare partners that want to contribute some funding to increase healthcare workforce. So we are really hopeful this year that if there's one-time funding available, maybe we could use some of that for deferred maintenance. Moving to the 26-27 fiscal year, our board budget plan seeks to address mandatory costs and then expand on priorities that I think the legislature will be in agreement with. We face about $320 million in mandatory cost increases, including health premiums, insurance, utilities, previously agreed upon compensation increases. These are things that we have to fund, regardless of how much state funding we get. But beyond those baseline obligations, the board would seek to expand several other priorities. Enrollment growth per the compact. We would use some of our operating funds to address facilities issues. We would generate $300 to $600 million through our bond program to address deferred maintenance and some capital outlay. We would definitely want to be working with our labor partners at the collective bargaining table to address their concerns around salary, steps progression, health benefits, other issues. And then finally, the chancellor talked a lot in her appearance here in February about CSU Forward, our strategic plan, and the student success framework, which is sort of the new iteration of the graduation initiative. We have key goals around increasing community college transfer, ensuring more debt-free graduation, expanding things like paid internships and developing industry partnerships. We are really shifting from a model that's aimed at graduation as the goal to a model that is graduation, but also first job or grad school. We want to make sure we are working with students from the moment they're on campus to understand the options they have for careers. And that is a significant change. So strong sustained state investment is what will allow CSU to fulfill its mission serving California students and meeting the workforce needs of the state We look forward to partnering with this committee to achieve those goals Thank you very much to all three of you Let me start with the facilities issue
I actually did not intend today's hearing to focus so much on that and don't want to make it appear we're having a discussion on a policy bill. There is a bond that the Assembly has moved over to the Senate on the issue of facilities for the three segments, but because it hasn't been over 20 years since there has been any approval of fundings from voters to help support the infrastructure at our segments. I think I heard $300 million to $600 million of the CSU's funds would be utilized, anticipated to be utilized in the budget year for this purpose?
Is that correct?
Yeah.
Well, we would use $25 to $50 million for debt service on bonding that would generate $300 to $600 million for deferred maintenance and for capital outlay.
And is that the extent of the funding that's used for capital outlay and deferred maintenance?
No, we have existing bond funding that is supporting facilities. We do provide funding to campuses for new facilities to increase maintenance. So there are other expenditures going on.
But that's all non-cash funded? It's all bond?
through smaller bonds that you do? Well, I think there are some, I mean, campuses are using some cash for facilities issues.
Okay.
Just to quickly add to you, I believe the CSU is authorized to use roughly 13%, 15% of their general fund base to issue debt service for bonds. And this is a bill that occurred in 2013-14, but they used roughly up to 15% of general fund. Is it the administration's belief that that 13 to 15 percent authority is significant enough to address the roughly $8 billion deferred maintenance problem?
From an administration's viewpoint, we haven't necessarily had those conversations with the CSU or brought in the LAO, but that's something that we'd be open for, having those conversations and see if the 13%, 15% is an adequate amount and see if any proposed amendments to that bill can be proposed in the upcoming budget cycles to possibly authorize additional general fund usage. Okay.
Yes.
Sorry, Jennifer Pichel again from the Ledge Analyst's Office. When the state in 14-15 gave CSU the ability to issue university bonds for state-approved facilities, it wanted to make sure that it didn't take on so much debt and it had an adverse impact on the rest of the operating budget since debt service comes out of the operating budget. So the legislature can consider whether the 15% for CSU. When you look at their total core budget, it would be more like half that. The state's debt service, for example, hovers about like 5% of general fund revenues go to annual debt service payments. But the main driver there is just what do you think is a reasonable debt burden for CSU and how do you want to balance the rest of operations with debt service? Right now when it comes to their deferred maintenance backlog this eight some billion dollars and what to do about it I think in the past the state has made it a high priority whenever there one money to help with this The state we have done reports in the past to say it's an important issue for the state to think about on an annual basis what CSU should be using out of their operating budget for just regular projects to keep deferred maintenance projects from ever arising. In an ideal world, the state doesn't have deferred maintenance. projects are done on time and additional costs don't arise because of delayed action. So they're connected issues, but I think what you would consider in setting the debt level for CSU, the 15%, is going to be slightly different than exactly how you go about tackling the deferred
maintenance backlog, if that makes any sense. Yeah. Yeah, we would obviously make the pitch for bond funding or one-time funding to address deferred maintenance as opposed to borrowing internally. So we would love to get back to a situation where we have more of a partnership and discussion each year around facilities needs, and it is obviously a great use of one-time funding.
Were there any requests made to the administration for more of this funding?
Yeah, our board's budget plan seeks up to $1.1 billion for deferred maintenance. That was part of the plan adopted in the fall, and we're certainly continuing that request as we talk.
What's the response from the administration on that request?
At the time for the governor's budget, the administration did not propose any funding for the deferred maintenance. Just given the overall budget outlook, the administration prioritized the compacts to the CSU, minimizing any further impact for students, but we are aware of the different maintenance backlog.
Is there something that you may be considering for the May revise on this front?
Can't speak to anything in the May revise, but we would be open for conversations with the legislature. And the CSU, I would say that the governor's budget starts the starting point of conversations between the administration and the legislature for any additional considerations at May revise.
Okay. And I know the LAO, I'm very familiar with, I think it was a 2023 report, most recent of many, on the issue of infrastructure backlog and deferred maintenance, which was for me an impetus to try and have this conversation about an actual bond. Can we, and I don't remember if this was in there or not, but can you help us maybe before May revise identify at the current rate of what is allocated in, well, there's nothing specifically in this year's budget, so that's easy to calculate. but maybe using CSU's internal bonding capacity in their program, what it would take to actually fulfill the deferred maintenance needs of CSU?
Is that something perhaps in a few weeks you may be able to put together? It doesn't have to be an extensive report, but... Yes, and I'm sorry, you might already recall this, and it has been a couple of years. But when we tried to look at UC and CSU, what it would take within their operating budget or within the state's additional augmentation of their budget so that they would be allocating enough each year. Right. We pegged it to like a best practice under fiscal conditions, which is something, if I recall, like two and a half percent of the replacement value of their entire inventory of facilities they would put aside every year. And then we had a 10 year plan to retire their existing defer their existing backlog. So after 10 years, they'd have no backlog, and they would have built up the practice of setting aside 2.5% of the replacement. value inside their operating budget. And as I recall, the numbers are sort of staggering because the state has not done this to date. So it's like hundreds of millions of dollars they would have to be spending right now to keep their facilities in good condition moving forward. So we can reshare that table that we put together, but it's just to give you a heads up. This is a statement of how important it is to just have good fiscal practices at the beginning, because once we get 40 years down the road, it's just so much more difficult.
Right. I appreciate that. And I do recall some of that in that report from three years ago, but it would be good to remind us. Let me move on from facilities now to the issue of revenue, and we talked about this a little bit in panel one, or issue one, on the core fund versus growth fund. So back to that a little bit,
But something that was stated from the LAO, so I'll go to you first, there is a 4.2% revenue increase anticipated due to tuition. And earlier, your colleague shared that annually there's been a 4.2% increase. Now, I'm trying to understand if is that the 4.2% reference earlier, which is roughly a number average, is that inclusive of state revenue and tuition revenue or is that only state revenue?
Can you help me understand the difference there?
Yes. So the 4.2% that I referenced just now is just looking at tuition and lottery. So $201 million for tuition and about $11 million for lottery. The number that was referenced earlier that looks over the last 10 years, that includes ongoing general fund and tuition as well. Combined. Combined, yes. And that looks over the last 10 years. So it's an average that includes both.
So would it be fair, accurate to say that in terms of revenue, it's a 4.2% increase plus the 7%?
Well, let's just say 5% because 2% is from previous years. For the current year, that is being almost a 10% increase?
Yes, on page 16 of the agenda, it shows on that figure 2 that 8.1%.
So that's inclusive of the tuition, lottery, and general fund, which we consider CSU's ongoing core funds. So it's currently around 8%, and if a general fund was removed, it would be around 4.2%. Okay.
I'll give CSU an opportunity to respond. Obviously, there's been a lot of increases, but I think that, you know, it certainly begs the question. What almost a 10% increase, how is that being managed?
Yeah, and I would just want one issue to note is that the tuition increase, we do take a third of that increase and use it for financial aid for our state university grant program. And so that's, we would consider that not available. But I would just note, we obviously did not receive new ongoing funding in the current year so this budget proposal is attempting to address that in addition to the thing I would also just note we have studied our sort of funding structure over the years and based on our sort of student demographics the programs we trying to offer we, and a report that was done in 2023 that looked at sort of national modeling around higher education and sort of what we were spending and what we should be spending, we feel we're about $2 billion short on what we should be spending to support the kind of students we serve and to expand on the programs that we serve. So I think any of this funding increase, we're incredibly appreciative of the governor's budget. We're incredibly appreciative of Assemblyman Fong's efforts to gather support for fully funding CSU and the UC. But we think all of this will help us to better serve our students, expand our programs, serve the state better.
I don't think anybody would argue that we don't put enough money into education across the board. I think what we're grappling with is, and I have to more consistently think about is, as all of us will probably be here for several years, is what the next few years look like. And I think I'd be doing a disservice to this committee and to our body if we don't think about what could happen in a year of deficits and what kind of just complete disruption to the system could happen when we don't have the resources to maintain the level. And so I'm trying to understand, you know, while always more funding is what we aim and strive for, when that's not going to happen, how are we the least disruptive? And so that's what I'm trying to figure out. How are we managing increases in revenue to stabilize? So that brings me actually to my next questions. you know, the LAO or maybe finance pointed out, there's out year commitments, at least, that have been stated by this administration, which, given the reality of what it looks like, may be difficult to accomplish. So how is CSU planning? What are the assumptions being made for those out years, given the probably reality that it'll be very tight over the next couple of years.
Yeah, and I think that's why you're seeing these sort of large-scale efforts at efficiencies. We want to get ahead of, we see the same out-year deficits you do, and I think are cognizant of that. And I think the answer, I mean, I don't know that we can out-efficient, you know, major state funding declines, but I think we are trying to position ourselves so that we can. We are as efficient with every state dollar as we can be, and that's through shared services, the integration of two campuses. But I think those are the kinds of things. This fiscal health monitoring process will continue to involve discussions with every campus on the specific challenges they face, the efforts they're making. But I will say a lot of the universities have made significant reductions in the last few years. and it will become harder and harder to make reductions while also trying to address state workforce needs and making sure more Californians go to college and get a CSU degree To be more direct do any of the turnaround plans the fiscal plans CSU systems
expectations, Chancellor's Office expectations for what happens over the next couple of years, are they assuming the roughly, I think it's $400 million over the course of two years of funding materializing, or are you planning in a way that does not include that funding?
I think both, in a way. I mean, I think we are trying to be efficient and get ahead of costs, but at the same time, the five-year compact funding, we did make plans. We are trying to address all of the compact goals that are laid out, and we intend to continue that. But it is, as you point out, it's sort of a tricky balancing act here where we do need to be prudent and more efficient. But at the same time, if we really do want to achieve the goals of the compact or the goals the legislature has for us, we are going to need ongoing funding. And even in bad budget years, we hope that higher education remains a priority and we can make our case for more state funding. Yeah.
Last question for me is sort of related to one that Dr. Patel made, which is, is there research, are there models that are being looked at? We have campuses of various sizes from a few thousand, I think, to almost 40,000. In most cases, they come with the traditional, you have a president of a university, and you have some organizational chart that is probably very basic, and I don't know the extent of that. Are we, is the Chancellor's Office looking at that and whether that model of administration is sustainable?
Yes. I would say that through the Shared Services Initiative, I think there are a lot of discussions and efforts going away, and this is a formalized process where universities can come forward or the chancellor's office can come forward with ideas for consolidation or sharing of services. And there are numerous projects either underway or being considered. I think some of that would fall under that kind of idea of how do we consolidate things. I mentioned Sacramento State at Stanislaus State sharing a CFO. So very difficult, but that's the kind of thing that I think we could see more of in the future.
Are there reference studies or research that you're utilizing to make some of those decisions or to encourage folks to look into? I'm just curious if there's national models.
I think there are several national organizations we work with. the state SHIHO, and I can't remember what that acronym stands for, but I think there are things like that. I think through the fiscal health monitoring process, one of the things that I think will be really important about that process is it will allow campuses to learn from each other as they're making reductions or efficiencies. That's a big part of that process. We'll allow the chancellor's office to be working with all of these universities, all 22, and sharing ideas around the system We are obviously a very large system and I think there will be a lot of great ideas that come out of that that we can implement throughout the system Okay Well again that and the other plans I think topic for discussion more at length for more details from my colleagues
We'll move on to Mr. Fung.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you so much to our panelists here. This question is directed to our CSU representative. In terms of the funds for the five-year compact and to continue to meet those goals and to meet the goals of the state and our legislature, would you mention that the funds are essential to stabilize our campuses and to sustain the growth that we have directed the CSU to achieve?
Oh, I'm sorry. Could you repeat the question?
Oh, absolutely. In terms of the five-year compact and the goals there in the compact and the goals that we've had as a legislature to continue to grow the CSU and to stabilize the campus and sustain the growth there, rather than deferrals to future years, would those funds now to meet the needs of the compact help the CSU to continue its growth? Yeah.
We would love for Governor Newsom to be the first governor to fully implement a five-year compact with the full funding. The goals in the compact are around access, affordability, collaboration, graduation rates. And I think we have plans to meet all of those compact goals, but we do need that full funding to achieve those goals. Without full funding, we are getting close, I think, to a lot of those goals, but we are not there yet. And so we would love the opportunity to use that funding to really lock in and make sure we achieve every single goal in that compact.
Absolutely. And to continue to fund that and to make sure that we look at opportunities for back payments for the fourth year of the compact funding and the full funding going forward as well and to retire the emergency loans as well. In terms of the work and efforts that the CSU has done, and to follow up on the Chair's question on this as well, this being the last year of the compact, how are you preparing? How is the CSU preparing for future budgets without any assured increases going forward?
Yeah, I think we are making lots of efficiencies and trying to be very prudent with how we spend state dollars. But we do have significant plans. Our CSU-Afford Strategic Plan is very ambitious, has very specific targets around graduation rates, community college transfer increases, student debt. We want to make sure every student from a family that makes $75,000 or less graduates without debt. All of that is going to take resources to enact. And so I think we both have our eyes on all of those goals. We are trying to make efficiencies and cuts and reductions and get ahead of cost increases where we can. And we're trying to balance those two together.
Thank you for that context. And anything we can do to continue to fully fund the CSU, especially in these challenging times now, especially with the federal cutbacks on a number of research grants, MSI grants, a number of the institutions that are continuing to protect and fully fund higher education here in California
is something that we're going to continue to advocate for. So really appreciate the insights. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. OK. I think that'll be it on this panel. We will appreciate it and move on to issue number three. This is the, so we're holding the issue open. Moving on to issue number three. The annual report, as required by legislation enacted in the last couple of years, to hear an update on the Title IX issues and the activities from the Chancellor's Office. I want to thank the Chancellor who provided us at the first hearing of the segmental hearing on an update but here to provide more updates and more specifics we have the CSU available and welcome you and thank you for being here
good morning everyone it's nice to see you again I'd start with an introduction my name is Peter Lim I serve as the executive advisor for civil rights Programming and Services at the CSU's Chancellor's Office. I'm delighted to share this update on Civil Rights Programming and Services across the CSU. I'd start with the State Auditor Report. As everyone knows, in 2023, the State Auditor delivered 16 recommendations across the CSU system on civil rights designed to improve and elevate the service we deliver to our students and employees in the context of Title IX violations, Title VI violations, which as an umbrella term I refer to as civil rights. That really was a call to action for us. That really served as an impetus to change the way not only we responded to incidents of civil rights violations, but also how we prevent them. I'm pleased to report that we have implemented timely all 15 of 16 recommendations and that last one we're well underway to meet that recommendation timely. That involves a system-wide case management system where we document our efforts to respond to civil rights violations. The last set of campuses across our 22 is jumping into that program and it will be done by June 1st of 2026 so we'll timely complete that recommendation. What I also want to share is how we've elevated civil rights across the system. We want to deliver a high-quality service in two forms, one in prevention and one in response. Across our system, we want our students and employees to receive a high level of civil rights service, regardless of the campus they attend or the campus they're employed at. It doesn't matter to us if they're attending CSU Maritime or they're attending CSU San Diego. They should receive that same level of service if they're harmed by a Title IX violation or a Title VI violation. With that in mind, we've built prevention and education teams across all 22 campuses. This is a monumental change and shift in the CSU. For the first time, every single campus has a dedicated coordinator who helps prevent the occurrence of sexual harassment and other forms of sex-based misconduct. We do that through education. We do that by becoming, through that education, part of the fabric of the community on that campus. And we're making huge strides in that. And I'm really pleased to share the work that our prevention and education coordinators are doing across the CSU system. The other, as we think about our response and delivering high-quality service, we've built an infrastructure that has never been seen before at the CSU Chancellor's Office. Right now we staff our Chancellor Office with subject matter experts in civil rights and civil rights attorneys who serve each and every campus who review decisions and critical decisions that they make to serve their students and employees and who review every document that that office provides to students and employees across the system By doing that, by centralizing that service at the Chancellor's Office, we help ensure that a CSU Maritime, a CSU San Diego, a CSU Humboldt all deliver that same high-level service to their students and employees. We also are piloting for the first time a centralized investigation service where we at the Chancellor's Office are staffing our team with civil rights investigators that we can deploy to each campus to help build their capacity and improve their investigations at each of those pilot program campuses. There are five campuses that are involved in this pilot program. We will serve that pilot program for the course of academic year 25-26, monitor its efficacy, and those campuses include Humboldt, Chico, Sacramento State, East Bay, and Bakersfield. And we'll share that progress and whether we expand that pilot program across the system in 2026. And finally, our oversight teams. Our oversight teams meet with our campuses on a weekly basis to make sure that they're recording their decisions, that they're providing that service, and we are delighted to share that as well. This is a really new approach to civil rights for us at the CSU. This is really predicated on understanding and appreciating that our response to civil rights is a service and that we deliver a high-quality service. I'm really pleased to share this update with you, and I'm here to answer any questions, but that concludes the update. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate you and the work
that you do there. The first question is, we asked this of UC and just want to get clarity. Has every campus now, does everybody have a coordinator? I don't know what position you may call it in CSU, but that's someone that's dedicated and in charge of Title IX. Is there someone on
board at every campus? Everyone, yes. System-wide policy, they all enforce each campus having a dedicated permanent Title IX coordinator or DHR administrator.
Appreciate that. I wanted to ask more on AB 2987, which was one of the bills, Ortega bill from a couple of years ago, that we must have updates within five days of disciplinary action to the respondent and the complainant.
What has been the, where can we identify with that data?
Where do you post that information?
So if you go to the Chancellor's Office webpage, you will see a dashboard. That dashboard provides full transparency on all the investigations conducted in any given academic year. It goes back 24-25 and 23-24. 23 when we started it as a result of the state auditor recommendations. As part of each campus's dashboard, you'll see data on investigations conducted and sanctions imposed. You'll also see how those sanctions correlate with certain findings. So if it's, by way of example, a sexual harassment finding against an employee, you'll see what the disciplinary action was. In terms of the timing of that disciplinary action, the five days, that's baked into our nondiscrimination policy, and those sanctions get imposed in that timely fashion through our policy. So obviously there investigations that occur and some may go longer than five days I trying to understand in terms of the five requirement that the legislation required
are the updates being provided and being reported on under which circumstances the update was required or not required? How can we understand better in that report that requirement and when it's being met in terms of number of days?
So the investigations, and let me clarify, the investigations aren't being conducted in five days. The gathering of the evidence and the steps that we incorporate to build in full and fair process take longer than that. The five days that I'm referencing is the imposition of sanctions. So at the conclusion of that investigation, if there's a finding or an adverse finding against an employee respondent or a student respondent, it's the imposition of the sanctions. So the sanctioning process that follows the investigation upon such a finding.
So just to, again, get clarification, the imposition, is it once the investigation is concluded, that's communicated right away or may it take some time for that to occur? maybe there's I don't know more review that occurs I'm just trying to really understand exactly when so that there can be a lot of clarity for everybody in transparency because it's a question that's been raised to me as to when should we I can investigation is concluded when is the information
provided to the respondent so the the information in terms of the finding is provided to both the respondent and the complainant simultaneously and it's It's provided in the form of a written report. So the written report includes a summary of facts, an analysis of those facts, and a finding or a determination of responsibility, which clearly states to both the complainant and the respondent who participated in the investigation whether the information was sufficient via preponderance to find a violation of policy. So they get that finding first. Upon an adverse finding, then that triggers the sanctioning process because both parties have the opportunity to share the impact statements, what we call aggravating or mitigating statements. So they fully and fairly participate in the sanctioning process. So once there's a finding, that's when our five-day clock starts tolling, and that's when they have the opportunity to participate. But the finding they receive first.
Okay. The finding triggers the five days, and you're meeting the five-day requirement on all cases where there's findings.
If we are not meeting or if there's an extension at the request of either party, then we are communicating that extension to both parties so they understand and are aware. We can't say that every one is done in five days because sometimes a party says, I need more time to digest this finding. I would like to submit an impact statement. I would like to submit some mitigating factors that you should consider in proposing a sanction. So sometimes that takes a little bit longer, but we will inform the parties where we extend that deadline.
Is that the same approach that's taken to the other piece of legislation by our colleague Chair Fong of AB 2047 on the adjudication and resolving of complaints of sex discrimination in a timely and effective manner? I mean, you must have the same dynamic happening where you're having a finding. There may be an individual who may challenge or ask for more clarification.
how is that different or the same So the the adjudication piece is the finding piece When we talk about adjudication and doing that timely we talking about the investigation that first finding that I just referenced So after the gathering of the facts after that trained investigator analyzes those facts they will issue an adjudication They will say one way or the other whether they find that the respondent violated university policy. That has to be done timely. That's not five days. That's 100 working days that we grant that time period to gather that evidence and reach that determination. And we are really, really focused on delivering those adjudications in a timely fashion. And so that's one of the metrics that we measure in the CSU. It's one of the things we're evaluating as part of that shared investigator pilot program because we're trying to do them faster, but also providing a full and fair process. So if a person was to say, I need more time to share more information before you reach a finding, we'll consider that request. and sometimes that extends the deadline. But as long as we're communicating that to the party so they're aware and informed, we feel we're providing a lot of our funds.
Last question. Is the data available on the chancellor's website with non-identifiable information raw data,
or is it cumulative percentage types of reporting? It's both individualized and collective. So you'll see collective data, but it's all de-identified. We can't disclose the names of people who participated. Yeah, but it's all de-identified. Thank you. But you'll see respond in class, just to pick up on that. You'll see whether it was an employee or a student.
Got it. Thank you. Mr. Fung.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your leadership and efforts on Title IX issues also. And thank you, Mr. Lim, for the updates here. In terms of the system-wide case management system across the CSU campuses, we noted in the report that it's summer of 2026. Do we have a sense of how that project is coming along?
So we have, I believe, 18, don't quote me on the number, 18 campuses already in the program. They're already using the system-wide case management system. There's going to be some growing pains in that, but to help minimize those growing pains, we are delivering office hours. We are monitoring their ability to use that system. And while they're learning and growing into the system, because that's very different than the system they're accustomed to using, We're trying to teach and coach them how to use the system and ensure that all the campuses are utilizing the system in the same way. So I think it's going, for me, I would say I think it's going relatively well in light of the size of this initiative. But we will be done in a timely way by summer of 2026.
Thank you for that context. And then in terms of the structure, in terms of the specialized oversight capacity at the Chancellor's Office and right into five dedicated teams, is that based on a regional model or how do we share best practices around Title IX issues?
It started as a regional model, so I appreciate the question because it started in clustering campuses within specific locations or geography. It's shifted over time. Some campuses need more support than other campuses. They're not all the same. And so what we've done is clustered our campus based on need. And so it's no longer, I would say, geographical, but it is still regional. Five clusters across the 22 campuses, all supported by a specialized civil rights expert and the civil rights attorneys who meet with those Title IX coordinators and DHR administrators on a weekly basis.
Okay, thank you for that context. and in terms of the funding for this type of program, is that in place? Is that something that the CSU system to make sure There are timely investigations.
How's that working out right now? So the funding is challenging. This is a difficult thing to fund because as we expand our programming, the funding, it becomes more expensive for the CSU. We have funding in place to support these regional oversight teams. But as we look to investigations, as we look to improve them and to centralize more investigators, we'll have to find the funding to support that.
Okay, thank you for that context as well. And really appreciate my colleagues. A couple years ago, we had a robust Title IX package, including Chair Arvarez and a number of my colleagues. And thank you so much to our committee and to Ellen, especially from the Education Committee for her leadership and efforts around this topic area. And we know we've had really robust hearings around this issue the last couple years, especially to look at the auditor's report and how we implement the recommendations. So I appreciate the updates here today. Mr. Lamb, and thank you to you and the CSU system for the updates here and the work and efforts ahead as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Appreciate that. This is an oversight item. Thank you again for your information and the work that you do. Appreciate that. Move on to issue four, basic needs. will bring back the panel from Finance, LAO, and CSU to give us an update on this issue. It's something, obviously, that the legislature has really been committed to in terms of supporting the issue of poverty, hunger, homelessness, and all the other trends that we are seeing among many, many CSU students. So we will kick it off with the Department of Finance. Do you have any comments on this?
Alex Navellas is with the Department of Finance. The governor's budget does not propose any ongoing changes to the CSU's basic needs, rapid rehousing, or mental health services, and maintains the current service level as follows. For basic needs, $26.3 million. For rapid rehousing, $6.8 million. And then for mental health, $15.8 million. For a total of $48.9 million. This concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you. Thank you. We'll hear from the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Thank you. I'm Natalie Gonzalez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. We have a few comments on this topic. The state funds three categorical programs at CSU that are generally viewed as addressing student basic needs. These include funding for food assistance, rapid rehousing, and mental health services. The state created the rapid rehousing program at CSU in 2019-20, and the state began providing ongoing funding for CSU for basic needs and mental health in 21-22. The governor's budget leaves funding for these three programs flat in 26-27, and there are no new state proposals for these programs this year. We wanted to note, though, that the federal government recently tightened certain exemptions such that some CalFresh recipients, including students, are going to be required to work 20 hours a week in order to maintain their benefits. These changes go into effect in June, and they could potentially impact the ability for some students to receive CalFresh benefits. We'd also want to note that CSU students, unlike other CalFresh recipients, could also qualify for Pell Grant, Cal Grant, middle-class scholarships, and institutional financial aid, all of which include gift aid that can help with funding living costs, including things such as food. Thank you and happy to take any questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you. CSU.
Yes, Mark Martin with the CSU. Happy to share an update on the CSU Basic Needs Initiative which is a core program at all CSU universities We view basic needs as a key to student success The initiative has evolved to a coordinated system-wide student wellness infrastructure that addresses food and housing insecurity and mental health needs. As was noted, CSU receives nearly $50 million in state support for these programs. I can give you an update on some of the information from these services, and there's a slide in my handout, the last slide there, that has some of this data. More than 77,000 students accessed food pantries on campuses in the 24-25 academic year. Campus-based case managers supported more than 16,000 students in their application for CalFresh benefits. All CSU campuses have established relationships with local agencies, many of whom provide food to our campuses or other projects, such as diapers and baby food. More than 4,800 students received emergency financial aid grants to help them meet a specific cost that could have been a barrier to the students staying in school. I will note that food pantry utilization has doubled on campuses in the last four years, indicating need and I think also indicating that these food pantries are becoming more integrated into campuses and more students are aware of them. While data is somewhat difficult to track, we think we have about 80,000 students receiving CalFresh benefits. On housing, emergency housing is offered at all campuses, and 18 campuses utilize the state-funded Rapid Rehousing Program. The Rapid Rehousing Program provides emergency grants, rental subsidies, short- and long-term housing options, and case management. 7,150 students were assessed for housing referrals in 24-25. more than 3,000 utilized housing support resources, and nearly 1,000 students were placed in emergency housing, either on campus or off. As for mental health, all CSU campuses provide counseling and psychological services, and counseling centers collaborate with various other campus programs, as well as providing prevention, early intervention, and culturally responsive outreach. A few facts for this program, about 32,000 students accessed counseling services in 2425. Campuses reported about 5,400 walk-ins or crisis appointments. A few other updates to share. We are starting to develop some outcomes data related to basic needs. For example, Chico State found that persistence rates were much higher for students who used one or more basic needs services when compared to students who didn't. And Stanislaus State conducted surveys and found that 74% of students who used basic needs services said the services helped them stay in school. We are partnering with organizations like the California Policy Lab, the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association Basic Needs Data Academy, and the Center for Equitable Higher Education to improve our ability to better understand student need on our campuses and to support more research into basic needs, usage, and student outcomes. We are also active partners with the other public higher ed segments in the state in the California Higher Education Basic Needs Alliance, which brings basic needs together monthly and supports work with the State Department of Social Services and other state and community partners. We believe these programs are all critical to student success. Student wellness is not auxiliary to CSU mission It is foundational Thank you and I happy to take any questions Thank you Appreciate the update I want to focus just on one thing I mean there a lot of good happening with the program but one that sort of has risen as a common theme
is the issue of of CalFresh and the federal requirements and I'm still uncertain as to how given the students utilization of this how the federal changes are going to impact them and whether the work requirements are going to create issues have you has a system system started to look into how to address that and how we're going to make sure we serve those students who are in need of those programs? Yeah, my understanding is the, I mean, students are already faced several hurdles to
CalFresh. They are essentially not allowed unless they meet an exception, and there are several exceptions. Work is one of them being enrolled in a program that increases your employability, and I think there's some work going on around that statewide right now. So we are still grappling with that. I would note a couple other federal changes in HR1. One is there is a lower reimbursement rate now for administration of CalFresh, and that will impact campus' ability to do outreach and support students in applying for CalFresh. So we're very concerned about that and are trying to increase services around that. There is also changes to immigrants and who qualifies for CalFresh. The changes will prohibit asylum seekers, refugees. It's, I think, some of the same things you're seeing in CalWorks and other things. So we are aware of several of those changes that I think will really impact our services or trying to work on efforts to address those. One of the federal research grants that was cut was a program called SNAP-Ed, which a lot of campuses used. It helped create gardens that were then used in the basic needs, food pantries, and other kind of nutritional programs that help students learn about how to be more nutritious. That program has been cut. So I think there's several things that are happening that we are grappling with and trying to continue service levels. but it's difficult with less federal funding.
You mentioned that there's some work being done. I have always assumed that the, not the work component, but the receiving an education to further their careers part of HR1 would be what most students would qualify for. So when you say work being done, what is happening in that space to hopefully have that as an alternative, the most viable alternative?
Yeah, I think there are conversations going on right now with the state and the universities and community colleges. I'm not sure there's an official announcement yet, but I do think we're trying to address that. I think you could argue that most programs at an institution of higher education are seeking to improve someone's employability. And I think there a lot of conversation around that I not sure there anything settled What the deadline for all of that to kick in Is that July 1st Yes Okay
Well, actually, I think some of this started April 1st. Oh, okay. Already. Yeah. Okay. Well, maybe more to follow up on that. That's it for me on this topic. We'll go to Mr. Fong.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up on the Chair's question as well. So in the lines of the imposition of new work requirements for CalFresh recipients, you mentioned April 1st or July 1st. How is the CSU expecting to adjust its approach to continue to support our students there?
Yeah, and I think if you look at a lot of the turnaround plans, I think universities are trying to expand basic needs programs. We are starting to see that that really does impact outcomes. And so I think with appropriate state funding, we hope we get, I think you will see expanded services there. We are working on, I think, a study this year that looks more specifically at student need, what the costs are of the programs we're running. I think we obviously get the state funding. There's a lot of philanthropy going on. I will note last year during the federal shutdown in the fall, a lot of universities really did a lot of philanthropy to get emergency aid to students who were having trouble accessing CalFresh benefits. And I think you'll see a lot of that in the turnaround plans, too, that there's some philanthropy opportunities around basic needs that I think universities are using. Obviously, you know, these federal funding cuts are significant. State funding for these programs has been flat. And so we are trying to do more with less, but I think most campuses are working on expansion of those kinds of programs because we do see the benefits to students.
Absolutely. And benefits to students and student success and retention, multiple efforts there. And then on page 25 of the report, I know you gave a high-level review of all the different campuses. But when we look at the different campuses, it says 16 campuses make fresh food and vegetables available, 19 campuses have meal sharing. Is there a reason why that all the campuses don't offer all these types of programs?
Yeah, I think it's a good question. I think all campuses offer similar types of services. Some of them are more specific. Some of them may be more local partnerships. Some of them may be using state funding. Some of them may be using local funding. And so I would just say for all three of these kind of topics, food, housing, mental health, every campus offers programs that address these student needs. They are all slightly different to meet individual campus demographics and that kind of thing. But I assure you, every university has food insecurity programs, housing insecurity programs, and mental health services that are funded by the state, by the campus. Obviously, there are some student health fees and things like that that pay for some of the mental health as well.
Thank you so much for the context. Anything we can do to continue to offer additional opportunities around these types of services is critical for our students.
So I appreciate all the updates here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you to all three. Appreciate it. We'll hold the issue open and move on to issue number. Number five on common course numbering. We'll ask the panel to please come forward. This is a priority that we have had of this committee, particularly this year. There have been legislative proposals approved, signed into law, and we've come to learn It's been a very, very long process to identify courses at our hearing in March with the UC. What we learned from them was that so far, there's about 150 different course templates that have been produced. And that as of fall of 2025, there are six courses that have been implemented in terms of common course numbering and that in fall of 2026, so this coming school year, 18 more courses will be numbered. So I'm assuming that's the same because we're all working together on this, but certainly interested in hearing the CSU's perspective on how this is going. Obviously related to the earlier conversation on enrollment, the easier, or the more we facilitate, I should say, students being able to transfer and get into a CSU, the enrollment issue is also benefiting from that. So that matters for that purpose and also obviously just for students having access in general. So we'll give CSU, well, we'll give everybody an opportunity, but I assume CSU has the bulk of this presentation. We'll kick it off with finance.
Yes, Alex and I have Velasquez with the Department of Finance. Just really quickly in our March hearing with you, You see the subcommittee question the amount of funding still available from the $10 million. So we were able to confirm with the community college chancellor's office that roughly $8.2 million have been exhausted, and there's roughly $1.8 million that remain. Additionally, no additional funding is proposed at the governor's budget, but I'm happy to answer any additional questions.
Thank you for bringing that information. Appreciate that. LAO.
Thank you. Natalie Gonzalez with the LAO. We have no comments on this agenda item. Thank you.
Thank you. We'll turn it over to CSU. Welcome.
Yes, good morning. I'm Elizabeth Boyd, and my pronouns are she, her, they, them. And I just want to say that as a first-generation college graduate and transfer student who experienced food and housing insecurity in my youth and young adult life, I'm very honored to sit here before you in service to the California State University as a faculty member and chair of the Academic Senate of CSU. It's a pleasure to see you again, Chair Alvarez, Member Fong, and staff. Very good to see you. Thank you for the opportunity to give you an update on the work of AB 1111, the Community College Common Course Numbering. I'm joined by my esteemed colleague, who will introduce herself and begin our update.
Thank you, Chair Boyd. Good morning, Chair Alvarez and members and staff. Marcy Sanchez the assistant director of undergraduate transfer programs at the California State University Office of the Chancellor I'm in the academic programs department working with transfer pathways and related policies and processes I served on the AB 1111 task force and currently sit on the common course numbering council as a system level representative for the CSU I also work with the team that coordinates the annual review process for the statewide general education transfer pattern also known as Calgetsy with the University of California Office of the President We want to share a few transfer facts for the CSU to get started As reported earlier this morning transfer applications to the CSU system are up CSU regularly accepts over 90% of transfer applicants across the system. According to a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California, about 58% of community college students who successfully transferred to a four-year institution in California went to CSU. And CSU currently accepts transfer coursework that the community colleges designate at the baccalaureate level. And how that credit applies to comparable subjects and requirements at each CSU campus is called articulation. And the CSU follows both campus and system-wide processes to review those courses. The Common Course Numbering direction that the community college system has adopted offers an opportunity to reflect upon their current review system for determining applicability of transfer coursework at those statewide and campus levels. My understanding of the CCN project is that coursework in phase one was chosen because it had the highest levels of enrollment and well-established transferability for existing coursework at the community college campuses. Phase I course subjects also meet admissions requirements for the CSU system and similar requirements for other segments. In fall 2024, after the development of the Phase I templates, we in the Chancellor's Office asked our campuses to voluntarily review them for applicability to campus-based requirements.
While we were not funded for this work, we wanted our campuses to weigh in on the use of templates for transfer coursework and provide feedback to us in the Chancellor's Office and the community college system about template content and detail. As of fall 2025, the voluntary review of templates by our campuses has resulted in over 15,000 courses across the CSU system that are comparable to the commonly numbered community college courses. According to community college data, there were over 500,000 enrollments at their campuses in phase one courses in fall 2025 alone. And by our estimates, this equates to around 180,000 students, possibly more, but that's kind of the low end. Those phase one commonly numbered courses will be accepted by our campuses for a variety of requirements. The process at our campuses to evaluate and accept commonly numbered courses includes additional review by discipline faculty, as well as updates to admission systems, transfer credit rules, and all degree audit and graduation systems. While this is a standard process for community college coursework changes each year, the need for each of our campuses to change close to 700 additional community college courses with Phase I was a substantially increased workload for our campus departments. Our campuses must update the articulation agreements for each individual community college, even if the courses are commonly numbered and accepted for the same or similar requirements. In fall 2025, the Chancellor's Office asked campuses to take the available Phase 2 templates through their transfer evaluation process, again on a voluntary basis, and the updates to transfer agreements will be published for public access in the assist.org platform by late summer, early fall 2026. So I now turn it over to Chair Boyd to provide the remainder of our presentation. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Chair Alvarez, we did our best to review the questions from the agenda and from the UC hearing to attempt to proactively address those in our remarks to be as efficient with our time as possible. So that's sort of the structure of what I'll present for you. First, I just wanted to clarify what a CCN template is. A template is exactly as it sounds It is a generalized outline of course level student learning objectives but it lacks specificity For example, in order to subsume a diversity of courses, templates do not include decals about topics, pedagogical approach, or sample assignments that provide clarity on exactly what transfer students learn. So why does that matter? The details of what are covered in a course are critical for determination whether a course not only passes muster for a general education course but also whether or not the course will satisfy a CSU graduation requirement and also prepare the student potentially for a major preparation course so what does the student see was one of the questions and they don't see the templates but as you're likely aware many of ours transfer students take courses from multiple CCCs and instead of seeing a different number at each community college that they attend to get classes from say for like a communication studies course they'll see one number regardless of the community college they attend which will reduce unnecessary duplication within the community college system and if it's carefully designed by the faculty then they will know from assist and then also through good counseling how it fits into the general education pathway. So with respect to the benefits the CSU foresees in implementation, there are many places especially in several general education courses which do not double or triple count for additional graduation or major requirements where CCN templates can provide adequate general detail to ensure that students transferring to the CSU enter with the same background as their classmates who started in the CSU. We thus see a great deal of opportunity to smooth the transfer for such common skills courses. We also see an opportunity to highlight major preparation courses by determining where we need to maintain carefully detailed articulation processes outside of the CCN. For example, in many regions the CCC and the CSU faculty have created efficient course pipelines that allow classes to count for GE and major preparation in majors that serve local workforce needs. So if these courses get lumped into the CCN frameworks due to their general education status, we'll stop up these pipelines to career and harm those transfer students. So we have to be very careful about how we move forward. In terms of support, guidance, resources the CSU needs to ensure that the Common Course number system moves forward as intended, the CSU faculty want to have more opportunities to weigh in on the CCN template development. However, in contrast to the hundred and fifteen million allocated to the community colleges for this work, the CSU has not received funding for this intersegmental partnership with the exception of a hundred and fifty dollar stipends to CSU faculty who have been able to contribute on the community college working groups. As the templates finally get released there will be increased workload for our campuses and the assist platform. We will need to have that be updated to help smooth the addition of templates to the articulation ecosystem. And as a faculty course advisor, I wanted to mention something else, which I see is critical to seamless transfer irrespective of course numbering is better mechanisms to electronically process transcripts from the community colleges And I know that you all are aware of that as well I understand there are ongoing discussions and work to get us away from PDFs and redundant hand of courses and that can't happen too soon.
So when will Phase 3 be completed, and will the deadline statute be met?
for many courses in general education, we hope very soon. As a member of the unfunded Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates, or ICAS, who is tasked with the creation of the singular general education transfer model curriculum known as CalGATSE, I can tell you that faculty in the three segments have been working hard on this. Last year, ICAS passed a resolution encouraging CSU and UC to informally review templates. to preemptively identify barriers, which then resulted in the voluntary review in our segment. And however, from my understanding, phase three templates were held subsequent to memos circulated by the community college chancellor's office, but just recently were released to the CSU in the last week for cursory review. You had a question also about how often there are meetings. So we wanted to just touch on that and conclude. So faculty have been very active, voluntary, and unfunded participants wherever we've been invited to contribute. For example, there are monthly meetings of the 27-member CCN Council on which three CSU members participate, including Ms. Sanchez here to my right and two faculty who primarily serve as consultants to the council given the voting majority. In terms of the intersegmental committee of academic sentence, the faculty leaders from the UC, CSU, and community colleges meet at least monthly to discuss a lot of different intersegmental issues, but among them, they're making progress on the process for CCN template approvals for general education. However, as I mentioned, the CCC administration had previously paused phase three, but now that they've released those templates, I expect the pace of the meetings to accelerate. I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to be here and answer your questions. Thank you. That concludes my remarks.
Thank you. Appreciate the very thorough report there. I have a pretty basic question that I probably should have asked before. Does each template represent a course, or are they multiple templates potentially for the same course?
So would you like me to?
Yeah, go ahead and take that. Okay.
They are a single template that represents a multitude of courses across the community college system. So one template to potentially cover 115 courses or potentially more, depending on how many fall under that template. So one number for a minimum or a maximum of 115 community college courses. And again, this is my understanding of how the community colleges are setting this.
Is it 115 courses? Because I heard the testimony you mentioned was different.
You have to have an agreement with every single community college. because of just the way the system is, which seems like there's some inefficiencies in that, which we'll definitely talk to community colleges about.
But is that the reason why it's 115 courses, or are we talking about a, let's just say, English 101, 102, 103, is that 115 that way, or is it 115 because there's almost 115 community colleges?
It's based on the number of community colleges. So the English C1000, for instance, as the English composition example, is the same number at each of those 115 community colleges. That's the goal. And it will replace the many potentially different numbers that existed in this system for the same course.
Got it. In the community college system, you mean?
Correct.
Yeah. Just as someone who took a couple of Africana studies and Chicano studies courses, is that work also being because I know like for example some of my oral communication was in the Chicano Studies Department but it was the same as oral communication in the English Department this is is that work inclusive of that how is that like another level of review how is that being integrated so the CSU
is required through legislation in 181460 to follow very specific guidance on any courses that fall under the ethnic studies graduation requirement. The work of ICUS actually we negotiated with our University of California partners to include that course in the Calgetti pattern and double count it into general education. However, each of those, the councils at our respective segments are responsible for the disciplinary expertise for the different areas of ethnic studies that fit into those
subject areas. I'm more concerned with those students who choose an ethnic studies department general ed course, which is, and not potentially missing out on the benefits of common course numbering because it happens to be in Africana studies or black studies or any number of others, but it's really a communications course or a writing course or a literature course or a history course as well. So that's the question that I'm trying to convey here is, are we capturing students who are choosing those as their general ed options as well?
That is the goal, I think, to look at the largest numbers of enrollments and kind of work backwards to make sure that we're covering the most number of students possible through all the enrollment trends that have happened up to this point. So I think that's what we've been shown at the council level are results of data analysis that shows these subjects have the larger number of enrollments across the largest number of community colleges and districts.
Okay. And starting with those so that those will provide the within system transferability that works and then working towards the articulation at the four-year school level.
I believe a Chicano Studies class was included in the phase three template development as well Okay So they are looking across all GE areas and then also looking at large numbers of enrollments
Would that be a Phase 3 potentially?
That one is yes.
Okay. Okay. Yes. That's important to know. Thank you. So to then be very specific in terms of the number of what you see referred to as student-facing courses, the number of courses that are commonly numbered with CSU, how many are we talking about at this moment?
So there are the standard templates that then turn into the individual courses. So there's six of those standard templates. And then community colleges have the option to offer an honors version and an embedded support version that helps with AB 705 and 1705.
Okay.
for English and math. So that was the number 14 that was shared by the UC. So each one of those templates actually, if a community college campus chooses to adopt that template, that is a course on their campus. And then those are considered part of that phase one review that we just went through.
So we're talking about this. So I was getting confused. the six reported by UC as fall 2025 courses. For a moment here in today's testimony, I was given that I don't have the history that you all do and AB 1111, I think was the number. I was assuming maybe UC had their own common course numbering with community colleges, and then you were going to have your common course numbering with community colleges. It really is common course numbering. It's the common course numbering at the community college level. Which applies to both of you.
We accept those courses. Right.
And so you are currently also accepting six courses?
It's actually the breadth, the 14 between the standard and the honors and embedded support courses that are commonly numbered. So there are 14 courses at a community college today that a student can take that are commonly, I'm not asking potentially, how many are actually, UC in their testimony said that as of fall 2025, not potentially, but actually implemented, there are six courses.
Those are the standard ones, yeah. That's correct.
So I think what is a little bit tricky here is our terminology. So we're talking about templates, and the templates encompass potentially over 100 courses.
Right.
And so six sounds very small, but it's not. It's hundreds of courses that have been approved to be articulated using these more streamlined number system, if that makes sense.
and so that's why you're probably not getting super clarity on exactly how many. I think what I'm going to ask of both of you and ask of the community, they're going to come to this committee in a couple weeks, is can't you just show me which courses are actually commonly numbered and give me a listing of them? Course catalog, and I can just reference that because you're right, I think I'm getting a little bit confused.
We'll send you the website. There is a website with the approved template and they're all listed. So you can go and see the mathematics template for statistics And that one would be universally used Yeah and I think I get the issue of the templates
I think, and I may be jumping ahead certainly from my perspective, not from yours, but the point of all this is what is the experience for students? and can they go to any of the 100-plus community colleges and know that if they take Biology 101, UC and CSU, it's the same biology requirement there. Maybe it's simplified, and I understand that it probably is, but from a student perspective, the whole point of it is to simplify. So that's what I'm looking for. what exactly is the student facing reality when it comes to the numbering courses. So we'll follow up on that. And again, we'll have community colleges here before us in the next two or three weeks, I believe. So appreciate the work. I hear you. It's been a commitment, a voluntary commitment, and appreciate it because it is meaningful to the students. And certainly want to find ways to be more supportive of that. So thank you, both of you, for your work, and thanks to all the panel. And thank you to everyone who came today to provide testimony.
Thank you, Chair.
And now we'd like to ask the public, if there are anyone who would like to make comments on items that were on today's agenda, We'd ask you to please come forward, state your name and affiliation if you have one, and provide your testimony again on the issues that were before the committee today. So it's an opportunity to come forward. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to speak? I see. Welcome again. Hello, Mr. Board.
My name is James Carlson. I last was here in late February when the chancellor was here, and I am once again here to speak with you guys. So a couple things. One, I would like to encourage you guys to take a closer look at Mr. Fong's budget for the 25-26 and 26-27 school year. And second off, I am from Oroville, California, from Butte County. I know what underfunded schools look like, and you do not fix a bleeding patient by removing more blood. I would ask you guys to seriously reconsider reallocating funding for schools, especially those schools who are not receiving enough funding. As one of my friends when I was discussing this said, it's like a reverse Robin Hood. You are taking from the schools that need it the most to get to the ones that do not need it the most. That's all I had to say. Thank you guys very much for your time.
Thank you. Welcome.
Hello, my name is Aiden. I am a graduate student and academic senator at Chico State. I'm here to speak in support of Assemblymember Fong's budget request for full compact funding for both the 25-26 and the 26-27 budget year. I'm also here to caution against any further funding reallocations from campuses like mine, which are failing to meet enrollment goals despite the university's best interest. I mean, best efforts, sorry. My classmates and I are seeing fewer course sections, and we are having a harder time getting the classes we need. in order to graduate on time. It's also been a lot harder for myself and others to experience the kind of support that I was given in my time as an undergraduate student, which was exemplary, and every year it seems like it gets harder to sort of justify even advocating that students try and get that kind of support So I think things like the hiring freezes we seeing are limiting faculty availability We losing out again on that kind of enriching student support And I don't at all get the sense that any of this comes as a result of declining quality or effort on the part of campus administration, faculty, or staff. So for campuses like mine that are already below target, I think the reallocations of funds to campuses which are already meeting or exceeding their targets seems to compound the problems. Thank you very much.
Yeah, thank you so much.
Good morning. Carol Gonzalez on behalf of the Cal State Student Association. As you consider CSU enrollment and funding decisions, we want to thank you for centering the student experience in your comments and questions today. While we understand the state's fiscal constraints, a shift from expansion to stabilization could mean reduced access to high-demand campuses, increased pressure to transfer pathways, and strain on course availability and student support services if funding does not keep pace. While funding is delayed or uncertain, students feel it directly through fewer course offerings, limited advising and mental health services, and longer time to degree. At the same time, students are navigating rising housing and living costs. This moment presents an opportunity to prioritize affordability through financial aid, basic needs, and ensure accountability for student outcomes. Ultimately, the state investment into CSU should directly improve affordability, access, and academic success for students. Thank you for your continued commitment to CSU students.
Good morning, Andrea Terry. I'm an associate professor in communication studies at Sacramento State and a member of the California Faculty Association. Thank you for your support of the CSU. I was delighted to hear about the average 5% annual increase that the CSU system has been getting that was referenced by the LAO today, but that money simply isn't realized for the majority of CSU students, faculty, and staff. The numbers of temporary faculty are rising. The numbers of permanent faculty are decreasing. And we at Sac State are facing a number of critical staffing shortages that have made life really difficult to be able to effectively serve our students. So today I'm urging support for Assemblymember Fong's proposal for a full compact funding for this year and the 26-27 academic year. But I urge you to make sure that that funding is directed towards direct instruction and student support. Thank you.
Thank you.
Good morning. My name is Malina Abdullah. I'm a professor of Pan-African Studies at Cal State LA. I'm also the PA-led chair for the California Faculty Association, and I've taught in the CSU now for 22 years. I want to just echo what's been said about Assemblymember Fong's budget proposal and ensuring that we receive full compact funding for the 25, 26, 26, 27 academic years. I also want to encourage you all to tie executive compensation to how well they do at achieving their goals. So at Cal State LA, we are one of those schools that is under-enrolled, but the compensation for our president continues to soar. In fact, her total compensation package is now $722,000 for the year. Her allowances alone are more than what I make is my total salary. And so we want to make sure that that resource, those resources go to funding students, funding classrooms and professionals. Viding for the things that actually make Cal States the great place that it is. Thank you very much.
Hi, good morning, Mr. Chair. Stephen Butcher with CSUEU, California State University Employees Union. I want to thank you for the hearing today. We're in strong support of the proposed January budget, which makes sure that staff is properly compensated. I'd like to thank the committee for your ongoing oversight and discussion of these issues today. Ensuring the CSU workforce is strong and fairly compensated is critical to ensure their mission. We appreciate the discussion under Issue 4 as well. Ensuring our students have basic needs is critical. One mechanism to strengthen student income is by sending a clear message to the CSU to bargain and negotiate fairly with our 20,000 student assistants that we represent for a fair contract. We need a funded CSU that supports every corner of the state and its employees, and the Governor's January proposal demonstrates critical funding for the CSU, and we look forward to working with you. Thank you. Thank you.
Good morning. Mario Guerrero, Government Affairs Relations Director with the CFA, also lecturer at Sacramento State. I did want to resurface and recenter this idea that we've talked about that campuses do a lot right beyond educating our students. They're also economic engines. So as we talk about enrollment and as we talk about reducing funding for campuses, we have to also continue to think about the impact to the economic health of that region. Secondarily, just want to lift up AB 1831, Aaron's bill. We heard today about linking executive compensation to enrollment. We invite you to have that conversation with Assemblymember Aaron's and see if that's a possibility. We think that's something that we should look into. Thanks so much.
Thank you.
And hello. I'm Adam Swenson. I'm the vice chair of the ASUSU and was lucky enough to not have to sit there today. I just wanted to thank you for your attention to the common course numbering stuff. I've been swimming in it for the last couple of years, and it is complicated. We're doing the best we can for our students. And I wanted to, on behalf of the ASUSU, say that we strongly support the proposed budget and hope that this committee can also find money for the CSU because we would like it, please. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to provide public comment? Okay, seeing no one else, thank you all for being here today. This brings an end to our hearing of today. We're adjourned. Thank you. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.