Assembly Budget Subcommittee No 3 Education Finance

. 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 afternoon, everybody. This is the Assembly Budget Subcommittee number three on education finance. Thank you all for being here on a non-typical day for this hearing, for this committee to have a hearing, but thank you very much. And as promised, when we delayed the items before us today at the previous couple weeks ago, we are here to hear four different issues. and I want to thank all of you who may have been there for this specific issue the last time and appreciate that you are back today. And in order to maybe make up a little bit for that, we're going to ask if you have public testimony on any of the four issues before us today and you'd like to make that at the beginning, we're going to give the opportunity to do that now. I encourage you to come forward if you'd like at this time, if you want to make public comment. and this will be just on the four items on part one for the Department of Education, four issues, expanded learning opportunities program, differentiated assistance and systems of support, universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure and training, and other non-presentation items. If you are here for those four, would like to make a public comment, give you an opportunity to do so in 30 seconds. I know you can do it. You've done it before. please help inform our discussion today with your public testimony on these items. So with that, let's get started. Remember to state your name, and if you represent an organization or affiliation, please do so. And I'll let you know when the 30 seconds have been completed. Welcome. First, there's a lot of you. Just step up, one of you. Don't be afraid. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair. Kathy Mossberg on behalf of the California Association of Food Banks to speak on the school kitchen infrastructure training funding. Just want to encourage this committee and the legislature to continue that funding into the next grant cycle. With the cuts and snap, the food for all at schools remains incredibly important to the families and the kids that are served through that, and it wouldn't be able to happen without these kitchen upgrades and the training that it provides. So really encourage you and the committee to support this funding. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Dan Merwin on behalf of the California School Boards Association. We support the changes to differentiated assistance, particularly around the identification and the three-year timeline. That really helps with CHURN, which kind of diminishes the ability of differentiated assistance to actually assist LEAs. We would flag we would like to have some ability for LEAs to move into differentiated assistance in the middle of that three-year term so that they don't languish. Thank you. Caitlin, on behalf of the California School Nutrition Association, CSNA supports the governor's polls to provide a third round of kitchen infrastructure and training. The first two rounds of funding have been really helpful in the field in building out kitchens. And we know there's going to be more needs to be done as schools are asked to provide more locally and prepared and grown food. So we encourage their investment in additional kitchen infrastructure funding. Thank you. Good afternoon. Anthony Chavez here on behalf of the Partnership for Children and Youth and the California Afterschool Advocacy Alliance, CA3. On the ELOP, we support the governor's recommendation to stabilize Tier 2 rates, and we also urge this body to find a way for more dedicated funds for older youth. Thank you.

Sadavatch is with Children Now, working with equity and education management groups, raising concerns directly to the State Board of Education relating to their DA proposal that would eliminate the current accountability system's equity guardrails. So we urge that we maintain in any updated system the current equity guardrails focused on closing achievement gaps and opportunity gaps. And we also are strong supporters of augmented support for the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program and school meals. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jalen Woodard, a Policy Fellow with the Alameda County Office of Education. We support the $62.4 million investment ELLP to stabilize rate two funding. We also ask you to keep the $13.3 million in the governor January proposal for universal and targeted assistance We support shifting differentiated assistance to a three cycle for districts and charters to allow time to address challenges and improve student outcomes. We also request that DA eligibility remain connected to outcomes for specific student groups. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Liz Fenton, on behalf of the Office of Cat Taylor, the Center for Ecoliteracy, and over 225 organizations in the School Meals for All coalition. We're here in support of item number three on the agenda, the inclusion of funding for school meals and the kitchen infrastructure and training program in the governor's budget. The programs are a simple and effective lever for the state to address the ongoing challenges of affordability for families in California. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of NextGen California, here in strong support of fully funding School Meals for All, as well as the $100 million for the Kitchen Infrastructure Program. As federal safety net programs like SNAP begin to contract, providing meals to students where they are, which is in the classroom, will become essential to meeting our goals. And we are in strong support of fully filling these items. Thank you.

Good afternoon. We're Cal Morales on behalf of EdTrustWest. Similar to other comments, we have concerns about the proposed trailer bill language that would eliminate the current accountability systems equity which focuses on improvement systems for student subgroups. We also believe that the key tenants of the accountability system, like the focus on student subgroups and culture of achievement gaps, should be codified. Thank you.

Michelle Warshaw on behalf of the California Teachers Association. Sorry, I ran here. We'd like to align our comments with those of CSEA on item number two for differentiated assistance, and also would like to express support for the changing every three years. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Idelice Perez with the Department of Finance. So the governor's budget provides a total of $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 general fund to support the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program in 26-27. ELOP provides year-round access to enrichment activities and before and after school supplemental education programs for all TK to 6th grade children in low-income communities. This program reached full implementation in 25-26 to provide children with access to subsidized before, after, and summer school. Additionally, we want to note that the governor's budget proposes $62.4 million ongoing Proposition 98 general fund to provide a minimum of $1,800 per pupil in 26-27 for LEAs with TK to 6th grade and less than 55% unduplicated pupils, which are known as Tier 2 LEAs. I'll now provide a response to the question listed in the agenda. In response to question one, the 2627 governor's budget proposal is meant to provide stability to tier two LEAs by setting an 1800 per pupil minimum for the tier two rate. We want to note that this is based, you know, that based on existing law, the tier two rate could exceed the $1800 per pupil minimum, which is dependent on the amount that's available after funding is allocated to tier one LEAs. and as long as the Tier 2 rate does not exceed the Tier 1 rate. This is meant to ensure that any funds that remain after being allocated to Tier 1 LEAs can provide additional support to Tier 2 LEAs and their program implementation efforts. We are also happy to have further conversations with the legislature about the Tier 2 rate for these LEAs as we work to reach a final budget agreement. And with that, we're available to take any questions.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members. Dylan Hoxhul-Kletzau with the LAO. We recommend modifying the governor's proposal to make the Tier 2 rate fully fixed. The Expanded Learning Opportunities Program is the state's primary before and after school program, and as you can see on page 4 of your agenda, it has two different rates that it pays based on the given district's share of English learner and low-income students. The 25-26 budget increased funding for the program to $4.6 billion, as finance just mentioned, to change the threshold between the fixed tier one rate of $2,750 and the lower tier two rate that fluctuates based on those remaining program funds. This year's proposal is that additional $62.4 million to set the minimum tier two rate to $1,800 while still allowing it to fluctuate above that level. We think this proposal could be helpful as Tier 2 rate uncertainty can make LEA planning difficult. However, we recommend going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, the rate it has been at for the last two years, and not allowing it to exceed that amount. Additionally, we recommend future rate changes be tied to changes in program requirements rather than simply the number of students in the system Thank you That concludes my comments How do you take questions at the appropriate time Thank you We hear from the Department of Education Thank you Kimberly Rosenberger On behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and CDE, we are incredibly proud of this program and supportive of continued investments. Our pending bi-annual report indicates the promise of this program showing across the board improvement in attendance and math scores, targeting our English learner proficiency students, having them college ready. It is clear that this program is working. That will be out shortly. But the trends that you're asking for us to report on, I do want to indicate in the questions, such as what we see for enrollment and for TK are not ready yet. The legislature in 2023 required us to start collecting that data for the 2025-2026 school year. Since it's the first school year that we are implementing that, we need to make sure that we're providing the support to the schools to ensure quality assurance and that the data is complete and accurate. We expect to see this around mid-2027 to give you that feedback, but we don't have the data at this time on enrollment patterns or on the number of TK and K students that are served in ELLP. In terms of the question around in ACEs with a larger ratio and should ACEs ratios conform to ELLP. We don't know the numbers, but the ratio for ACEs is 20 to 1. And when ELLP and ACEs funding are used, the ELLP ratio is 10 to 1. We believe that it's appropriate for ratios to be aligned with what the TK and K standards are, but we have no specific comment on the ratio recommendations. We were also asked about how How many ELOP sites are double funded with ACEs or 21st Century? I swear I'm not trying to not give you information, but part of the distinction between ACEs and 21st Century is those are state-appropriate dollars, so we have the site-specific information, whereas ELOP is apportionment-based, and so the funding is determined at the local level. So we can tell you at the higher macro level of LEA apportionment that 52 LEAs have a combination of ACEs, 21st Century, and ELOP. 475 LEAs have a combination of ACEs in ELOP and one LEA has a combination of 21st in ELOP. 23 charters have a combination of all three. 273 charters have a combination of ACEs in ELOP and zero charters have a combination of ACEs, 21st and ELOP. So I'm going to add some extra factoids in since I have less than you asked, but we are appreciative of the ability to opt out. We believe that will improve the audit findings, and at this point we have seen 51 opt-out, mostly from charters. And those that are continuing to participate seem to have a better understanding and have engaged technical assistance, so we think overall we're expecting to see improvements in our findings. The question of are all LEAs expected to offer a program other than those that opt-out is that Tier 1, the 55% unduplicated or higher must offer to all students, period. Tier 2 LEAs must offer ELP to all unduplicated students. This is where I remind you that at this time, TK has a bit of a barrier because we're not doing the English learner screening so that they are not counted in that unduplicated percentage. So we don't have the numbers yet, but we expect to see some barriers, and that's what we've heard anecdotally for TK. The question of LEAs offering their ELP options to parents We don think stronger state standards for parent engagement and program advertisement are needed At this time in order to participate they have to offer through recruiting advertising publicizing or soliciting through culturally and linguistically effective and appropriate communication channels. We have seen through feedback and improvement and engagement that this has been taken up, and they're doing well. We think it was a little bit more of a learning curve that we're seeing, and we haven't seen anything that indicates stronger standards or requirements are needed at this time. The question of enrollment versus participation, we are on record as being enrollment across the board. We wouldn't recommend changing this program that does it on enrollment-based. They still need to be able to serve these students. We think it's a better approach. We think it encourages participation and making sure they have the full support needed. So we would discourage shifting to an attendance basis. We found especially during last year with the withholding and concerns around federal services, knowing that we had an enrollment-based structure really allowed us to provide additional support and resources for all students. The LEAs, whether they're utilizing the sliding scale parent fees, anecdotally, yes, we've heard that. but we don't collect that data. And then how are LEAs incentivized to ensure all interested students receive services? The requirement to offer and provide access is reviewed in their annual audit. So that is where we usually find those data points. The audit findings vary, so we don't have one consistent answer. And then our local resource and referral agency is posting third-party ELP options for parents. And what is estimated magnitude of student services for ELP on third-party sites? It varies depending on CDE or DSS. CDE collects that third-party information from LEAs, including the information and contact information on the site. We post the location information on CDE website and send the locations and contact information to DSS as well. We continue to have ongoing conversations with our agency partners about ELP, TK, and K programs, but whether these programs should be licensed, exempt, if they are not located on a school campus. Any program located in the school campus and funded by LEA is license exempt. DSS has asked for ELP-EC to be added, requiring CD to annually collect the location and contact information for off-site programs operated by a third party. We collect the data and turn it over to DSS. We have an agreement made with them that we turn the data to the resource and referral network so that they can help families understand where programs are located. The Expanded Learning Division sent surveys to all LEAs that received ELP funding, and 1,623, we got about 1,490 to respond, so a pretty robust reporting, and 328 LEAs reported partnership with a third-party off-site provider, and a total of 31,059 students were served off-site in preschool through grade 12. In terms of should the ELP statute be adjusted to allow school meal and time and staff to be more inclusive in the ELP offerings. We understand the thought process behind it, but we would discourage that expansion because we believe it's a slippery slope of maintaining the true intent of the program, which is to augment the school before, after. And we think that the instructional window could be affected by this and could undermine the integrity of the program. Are ELP plans still necessary now that CalPAS data is collected? Yes I know we don like to hear more reports but we think they really necessary They helpful in our audit findings They helpful in providing our technical assistance And it also ensures that families know who the ELE is using for their funds and how the students can be supported. We think the transparency is really necessary for public accountability. With that, I conclude my comments, and we'll answer any questions as needed.

Not at this time. We do expect to have more robust data with this coming soon collection, but we just opened up the reporting requirements, so it will be some time before we have that.

Jen Taylor with the Expanded Learning Division at CDE, and they are audited and also receive federal program monitoring reviews. Okay. In the auditing, is there any identification of use of sources of which students they're serving or anything like that?

However, I do want to note in the ELOP plans, there is a prompt within the plan that asks about other funding sources related to expanded learning and how they'll work together to build a comprehensive program. Do you think there may be a possibility that some LEAs, school sites, charter schools may be utilizing all three funding sources and identifying the same students?

So homeless, foster youth, students eligible for free and reduced price meal. they would be a priority for ACEs, for example, and they're also a priority with ELOP. So the programs would work in building a comprehensive program to first prioritize those students. So it would be as they go through the comprehensive program, they would be looking at those students first.

Well, it's difficult at this point because it's a local decision for the LEA to distribute the funds to the particular school sites versus ACES and 21st is funded by the school site level. So it would really depend on the LEA. So we're allowing LEAs to send funding to potentially to sites that have 21st century and ACES already? At this point, yeah.

Well, so we will be having our bi-annual report, which does show some comprehensive data, not site-specific, but we'll have the comprehensive data that has like the student breakdowns kind of of how many unduplicated are being served, what the homeless percentage is being served, things of that nature. And that will be out in the next early month.

Yeah, for CALPADS data, I think we're looking at mid-2027. But to your point earlier about that's partly because we're doing the quality assurance to make sure that we're providing extensive technical support at the local level to ensure that the data we're getting is complete and accurate so that we're not counting a student three times or using the program to report over report. So there is a quality assurance that we're working on. We'll take some time to make sure that it goes through. And so that is part of the assistance we're supporting at the local level at this time as we just opened up the reporting requirements.

about why that number with finance Well from our perspective we seeing that this is the number that districts have been planning around for the last two years And in our conversations I mean we always heard that they would like it to be higher, but we haven't heard of a drastic increase of districts that have stopped participating in ELOP. So to us, it seems like it's a sufficient amount for tier two.

I was going to add, I think based on our analysis of what the rates actually provide, we think that the 1579 is more than sufficient to provide the program based on the expectations that the legislature has set. And so I think that's part of the rationale. And so I think that's part of why the next part of our recommendation is if there would be increases, we would recommend that they would be based on some clear expectations of what additional programming or requirements would be in place.

Yeah, so partially it's from like feedback from the field and what we're getting in terms of like Tier 2 LEAs needing additional support and being able to provide this level of stability so they can like have a baseline that they can plan for moving forward. since the current approach of like just seeing what's left over can be a little bit difficult for them to plan in terms of like what they can offer for their program. And additionally, it's, you know, this rate is based on like the funding available that we have within the Proposition 98 guarantee. But, you know, based on current law, like we do want to note that like tier two LEAs can receive more than this amount. and that's just contingent on whatever's the leftover funding that would be provided, as long as they don't exceed the Tier 1 rate.

It was based on 98 availability and some feedback from the field that they'd like a higher tier two rate that is stable? Yes, that's correct.

Yes, that is to answer that. Yes, it is the remaining funds that came back and raised the tier two amount to 15. Okay And then what we did in the current year is we said since that what they use the year before we should stick to that as being the minimum required a minimum amount Is that correct?

Oh, sorry. Could you repeat that part? Given that in 2425,

rates should be 1579?

Yeah, we would have to defer to CDE on that as for updated data.

Not at this time, but we have.

The data we are hoping to get by mid-2027.

I don't believe we'll have the data by May revise.

I think we can follow up with your. I think in terms of spending data, in terms of the funding that's been appropriated, I think that is something that we could follow up and get you information. I think when it comes to participation data or number of students, that's the area where I think-

Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, we can follow up, but I think there is some available-

Well, we'll circle back.

We can get you that breakdown. But, again, the ACEs and 21st Century will have that more specific regional. And then on ELOP, it's across the board because it's an apportionment. So are you asking specifically for the ACEs 21st Century breakdown?

Yeah If those are done by LEA then those I would love to see or site Site we can get you that data yes Yeah and many of our schools many of our LEAs don have a dramatic geographic distribution

Absolutely, and just as a reminder, those two programs do have a supplement, not supplant requirement, which can be a barrier for schools. And so it helps for the concern about using the funds for the right purposes, but will also probably inform the regional breakdown.

Based on the feedback we received, it is inclusive of stakeholders who are able to access, like through their programs, both 21st century and ACEs funding.

$4 billion.

I believe LEAs have two years to spend those funds, so I don't think we have final numbers of how much has come out. But in terms of appropriation, I think our understanding was by design, essentially all the money gets allocated because if people opt out, then the rate goes up. So essentially all the money is out in the field. It'll take maybe until next spring when we find out if there's any.

I believe they would not. In terms of the, if they don't spend it, that's more, the funding reverts back to the state later, and then that can be used for other Prop 90 purposes. Just to add on to that, I believe that was what happened with money that was unspent from earlier years of ELOP, the first years of ELOP, when that money was unspent. It was then portioned out to Tier 2 districts, I think, in 24-25. And I think that was an explicit decision by the legislature in the budget to say whatever amount of unspent funding is available, we want to also use that.

So the allocations are based on prior year attendance. So at the appropriation, when the department makes the appropriation, initially there is a... a rate at that point in the beginning of the school year, there's a rate that they know what the rate would be. And then they build their program around that. But again, when we go into next year, the department has to look at what prior year, finalized prior year attendance data to figure out what the, what's the amount necessary to fund tier one districts before you can.

Yeah, no, we know, we know the initial, I would say that we know what the formula per student appropriation is going to be. And so that is the initial allocations made to LEAs, or not the initial. The appropriations made to LEAs is based on prior year attendance. So they do know that. But we pass a budget in June, and the department does those calculations and usually figures that out. It's like July or August. So when we're passing the budget, we don't know what the exact number is. once that rate has been set, that doesn't change over through that fiscal year. It'll change next year maybe for next year's allocation, but it doesn't change for this year's allocation.

Dr. Stephanie Gregson, Deputy Executive Director from the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, also known as CCE. My goal and role here today is to explain the complex California statewide system of support as it relates to technical assistance for districts in a clear and concise manner in about five to seven minutes. So wish me luck. I did bring visuals to help as any good teacher has something to anchor my explanation. So if you look at the first visual, this is a visual of our California statewide system of support. We have three state-level agencies, the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence, the California Department of Education, and the State Board of Education that are responsible for coordinating and facilitating all partners within the statewide system of support. We have many lovely partners within in the statewide system of support. We have 58 county offices of education We have seven geographic lead agencies that are made up of nine county offices of education And we have over 50 leads and initiatives within the statewide system of support An example of one of those initiatives is the community engagement initiative and the California Coalition for Inclusive Learning. So that is kind of the overview of all of the partners within the statewide system of support. You can see the little cog there showing that our job and our role is to support all of our local education agencies. If you look at the next two visuals, and I ask you to look at them together because they are similar but provide slightly different information, our California Statewide System of Support District Technical Assistance is organized just like our multi-tiered system of support with universal, target, supplemental, and intensive. Within universal, these are all resources from our state and federally funded initiatives and leads that provide resources and supports to all of our LEAs for free at no cost. And when universal supports are of high quality and attend to the needs of the districts, they can help support districts in a very proactive manner, which is the goal of universal. When we look at targeted and supplemental, we have three layers within targeted and supplemental right now. Yes, member Patel, three. I can see that on your face. We have differentiated assistance, which is led and provided by our county offices of education. The eligibility for differentiated assistance is one or more student groups not meeting two or more state priorities within an academic year. So that is released on our California dashboard. We also have CALPADS differentiated assistance. For a district to receive CALPADS differentiated assistance, they either missed their CALPADS data submission or have many errors and missed the CALPADS data submission. Then we have the Geographically Differentiated Assistance, which was new this year, and there is trailer bill language proposing that that will sunset. The Geographically Differentiated Assistance eligibility criteria is one or more student groups in two or more state priorities in three consecutive years. And that is our targeted and supplemental support for districts and their eligibility criteria. The geographic leads are responsible for providing the geographically differentiated assistance. Then all the way to the right in the red box is our intensive technical supports for districts. That is provided by different partners. So direct technical assistance is the role and responsibility of CCE. I have the privilege of leading that work with our districts and our team. We also have the intensive continuous improvement monitoring with special education that is also an intensive support, and that is led by CDE and technical assistance providers. For direct technical assistance, the eligibility criteria is three or more student groups not meeting two or more priorities in three of four consecutive years. And that is the technical assistance that CC is responsible for providing. And then all the way on the second graph we have the intervention element which we don see as providing support because it is an intervention for districts that are unwilling and unable to implement any recommendations and supports being provided by their County Office of Education and the California Collaborative for Educational Excellence And that is a referral for state intervention to the California Superintendent of Public Instruction That is our layers of support for direct technical assistance, differentiated assistance, and our universal supports. Now, on the final visual is our technical assistance support by numbers. So for charters, we have 135 charter schools that are eligible for direct technical assistance and 138 charter schools eligible for differentiated assistance. On the right-hand side, we have districts. We have 560 districts that are eligible for differentiated assistance. They're either in year one or year two of this support. We have 78 districts with geographically differentiated assistance and 53 districts for direct technical assistance. 34 districts are eligible for all three levels of support. The most eligible student groups are students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, African-American students, and foster youth. So these are our student groups that our districts are struggling and serving across the state. There have been a lot of successes. As you can see, there's a lot of complexities with this system and a lot of districts that are in need. There's a variety of contexts within each one of these districts. So behind these numbers are district staff and members that are doing their best every single day. And there's students behind those as well. And if we think of an emergency room, when we look at our technical assistance, especially in direct technical assistance that I can speak to very well, we have an emergency room where we have broken arms all the way to heart attacks. And this type of support, we have to ensure that we are understanding the type of broken arm that is happening and entering the emergency room, what type of support that they need and provided to them right away. So we're meeting the districts where they're at. If they're having a heart attack, that is a different type of support that's necessary to help meet them where they're at and help them grow and improve student outcomes. We have a lot of examples of successes within all of the ranges of support for districts. One great example is the coordination of support between our differentiated assistance partners, our continuous improvement monitoring partners, and our direct technical assistance partners. It is really vital that all three partners in that technical assistance are showing up in a coordinated and supported pathway of support for districts, because otherwise you're having could be up to seven or eight different people asking the district to do five million different things and distracting them from the actual change work that impacts student outcomes. outcomes. So the successes that we're seeing is when these partners come together and talk and collaborate and align support for one pathway for the district with a common goal and a common outcome and leveraging the strengths of each of the partners for the needs of that district. There's also learnings as well. So I talked about the coordination of support. We also still, that is a learning for us as well. There are definite silos within direct technical assistance in differentiated assistance, in continuous improvement monitoring with all of the partners there as silos. But we are working on that through intentionally implementing conversations and discussions around how do we break down the silos together to do better for districts because that ultimately the goal is to do better for districts

Absolutely. I'll just close out with saying that deep systems change work requires focus, intention and time. So the importance of the statewide system of support, collaborating, breaking down silos and integrating to become an aligned pathway of support for each district is critical. Having high-quality, universal, targeted, and intensive support is non-negotiable for our districts, more importantly,

by the California Collaborative, the Differentiated Assistance, or DA, model and proposed Universal and targeted assistance UTA models are deeply embedded within the statewide system. In my remarks, I'll briefly speak to how the initiatives are funded and how the proposal to change DA to UTA impacts the system in the budget year and ongoing. The governor's budget maintains the current structure of differentiated assistance in the current year, proposing an increase of approximately $7.8 million Proposition 98 general fund for county offices and lead county offices of education to provide technical assistance to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools eligible for DA. This amount represents a $10.5 million increase for assistance to school districts and county offices and a $2.7 million decrease for assistance to charters in comparison to the Budget Act of 2025. This brings total DA funding in the current year to $126.5 million Proposition 98 general fund. The current year funding level is determined based on the following. One, a base grant of $300,000 to each county office of education. And two, a number of LEAs identified for DA based on a three-year rolling average. And the grant for each school district is identified for either 100,000, 200,000, or 300,000, dependent on the LEA's average daily attendance. And for charter schools, each LEA or each charter identified for DA is 100,000. Given that this current formula is dependent on the number of school districts and charter schools identified for DA and eligibility for DA changes on a yearly basis with the release of the California Dashboard, this existing funding model has resulted in significant fluctuation for COEs and subsequently local education agencies and charters over the past few years. Beginning in the budget year, the governor's budget revises the funding methodology in an effort to, one, provide more stable funding to county offices, two, strengthen access to universal resources, including those available through the statewide system of support, and three, ensure that county offices are providing high-quality support to all LEAs they serve, regardless of DA eligibility. The proposed methodology establishes continuous and stable resource levels for each county office by delinking the LCFF Differentiated Assistance Funding apportionment level from the number of LEAs eligible for DA. Under the proposal, COEs will be responsible for providing DA to school districts and charter schools on a three-year cycle, meaning all LEAs eligible for support will be eligible for support every three years and will receive support for three years. Currently, eligibility is determined annually, and support is provided for two years for school districts and COEs and one year for charter schools. This three-year cycle will also align with the three-year LCAP and Every Student Succeeds Act cycles, bringing further coherence to the system. The governor's budget proposal provides broader authority for the state board of education to determine the performance criteria for assistance and intervention for local education agencies. Specifically, the proposed trailer bill language deletes the requirement for the criteria to be based on performance by pupil subgroups across two or more indicators or across two or more state priority areas, allows the State Board of Education to adopt unique differentiated assistance and direct technical assistance criteria for county offices, charter schools, and school districts, recognizing the unique challenges facing our County Office of Education in particular, and allows direct technical assistance eligibility to be based on factors that demonstrate the LEA is in need of intensive extended support. This proposal allows the State Board implement modifications to DA eligibility criteria for reference Education Code 52064.5 to ensure targeted assistance is focused on LEAs that need it most. In line with the revised methodology, the governor's budget provides a total of $131.9 million Proposition 98 General Fund for universal and targeted assistance in the budget year and ongoing. For reference, this is an increase of $13.3 million ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund in comparison to the current service level. This funding will be allocated to county offices in the budget year under a revised methodology compared to the differentiated assistance funding methodology. That includes a $500,000 base grant with additional funding being allocated on the basis of each county office of education county operations grant, proportionate with their share of statewide ADA, and a stability grant ensuring that no county receives less than 87% of the prior year's funding. The 2026-27 calculation also includes a one-year hold harmless as part of this transition from old DA methodology to new to ensure no county receives less in the budget year than they are generating in the current year. This methodology also includes a COLA for the $500,000 base grant to ensure stable funding over time. This allocation of funds aligns with updates to local education agency assistance and intervention performance criteria that the State Board of Education is required to update, pursuant to Chapter 8, Statues of 2025, AB 121, by July 15, 2026. In preparation for this deadline, the State Board of Education has held two study sessions over the past few months. Last November, the State Board heard an overview of WestEd's report and recommendations on DA, reviewed models for successful continuous improvement supports in other states, and heard recommendations from a local county office of education providing DA. This past March, the SBE held another study session on DA and heard additional recommendations from the California Collaborative Statewide System of Support Core Working Group and heard from a district superintendent on successes and challenges of DA from a recipient's perspective. Through these in-depth study sessions and public comment, several themes emerged, including that more time is needed across the system to implement real targeted improvement strategies and that there's general support for this three-year support cycle. Greater focus would help reduce churn and allow supporters to provide more work and deeply with district. A need to be more proactive with universal supports and shifting from compliance to productive capacity building support. And support for maintaining focus on student subgroups exists, along with an all students group, when determining eligibility for targeted support. And there's ongoing discussion about how to apply multiple measures for eligibility determinations with an acknowledgement that multiple measures are important. Currently, the SBE staff are maintaining interest holder input sessions over the next few weeks to get in-depth feedback from our education partners on the various considerations for updating the DA performance criteria. The board will hear an update and analysis on these input sessions at the May board meeting in the next few weeks. With me in the crowd, I have Amber Alexander with the Department of Finance and Katie Hardiman with the State Board of Education, and we're happy to answer any questions at any time.

which is how LEAs are identified as needing support, which is with trailer legislation included in the 25-26 budget package requires the state board to update the performance criteria by July of 2026. Without details about who would be identified under the updated criteria, we can't assess if the formula provides a reasonable amount, if the structure of the formula makes sense under the new criteria. It's also difficult to assess the merits of the timing and frequency proposed changes without knowing the selectivity of the performance criteria. We recommend revisiting both the funding and the policy changes when the administration can provide more information about the performance criteria. Based on the statutory deadline for the State Board, that would be revisiting the issue during the 27-28 budget process. The State Board could also finalize its updates early, and the legislature could consider the proposal in May. We also recommend the legislature continue to include language in state law that sets key requirements for the performance criteria. This would ensure that major changes to the performance criteria cannot be implemented in the future without input from the legislature. That concludes my remarks, and I'm happy to take questions.

I can be here just for questions.

Yeah, so it would be a three-year window of support. And the intent behind that is to make that alignment with the local control accountability plan.

But in year two and in year three, we see that some of the performance indicators with subgroups is they should be getting assistance.

So it's while everyone is getting some more proactive supports across the county office's jurisdiction, there's that more dedicated and targeted support going to those that are in DA. I understand that, but if the intent is to really ensure that there's really focused support with the resources, then the resources should come not from a large pot that's focused on everybody, but from a pot that's focused and dedicated on them. I mean, that's the whole intent of this type of level of support.

If I could add one.

Sorry. Katie Harden with the State Board of Education just wanted to provide a little bit more context in terms of what the board is considering in updating the criteria.

So, you know, one of the considerations, I think the board is considering is using multiple years of data in determining the eligibility. So using two out of three years or three out of the three years data to really be able to focus on those LEAs with the greatest need. So if that's the case, all right, if it's three years of data, we would then look back at the last three years in that three-year cycle.

Yeah. On that point, I think the trailer bill language is really meant to provide additional flexibility and authority to the board and really being able to focus those resources on those with the greatest need. However, we've heard from the public and from our board members. In fact, in our last board meeting, there was great support from many of our board members to maintain focus on student groups. So I think that is the intent of the board to continue to look at our student groups. But again, there's many considerations of how to do that.

I think a couple of the considerations are, as I mentioned, One, looking at multiple years of data to help hone in on those that are kind of the volatility of those fluctuating in and out of DA. The other piece is looking at the dashboard indicators directly instead of the state priority areas. And then looking at the state indicators versus local indicators.

Yeah, I wouldn't say it's another pathway. I think just providing more flexibility for the board given their role in determining the criteria.

I think I understand that, but going back to your earlier question, I actually would like to seek some clarity on the three-year eligibility window, because that also is a concern to me. I understand why we would want to align with the way the LCFF allocations are in the plan as a three-year plan. My concern would be with this gap of students that if we identify a student population that is on the trended pathway towards needing intervention and support, then they have to wait for their three-year window to open, and that would be a concern to me. It would seem we would want to look at rolling three years because student populations don't necessarily neatly fit into the three-year LCFF planning time window.

The board hasn't made a final decision on what that would look like. But I will say the intent of having more focus on fewer LEAs in DA would then free up the resources for those universal supports that George talked about to really try to prevent them from even entering DA in the first place. So then the DA would be like a higher bar to enter into, whereas ongoing supports would be a lower barrier of entry to receive those continually from your county office of education, for example.

Yeah, I think it would be to provide the board with more authority in determining the criteria. We're not proposing to take away any of the subgroups or anything like that. But giving you the authority would allow a future state board to change subgroups, and that's the authority you're seeking.

Yeah. And the groups as well. I think that's already probably under the purview of the board.

I think that's an education code.

I would just let it highlight our recommendation that because the performance criteria is not set, it's just really hard to talk about this in the abstract of kind of future changes, changes being discussed or considered. When in like previously when this was proposed or the first version of differentiated assistance, we had a, we had clearly who was identified. We, the criteria was set and we can think about what support they were getting, how the funding aligned, what kind of were the roles of, of the different entities. So, so I think there is some reason for the difficulty in this conversation is because the performance criteria is not set yet. And there's just a lot of questions there to kind of figure out some of these other pieces.

um just to clarify are you speaking to the the difference between the current year proposal and the budget year proposal or i heard you state that there's a hundred thousand sort of an i think you said base amount for a charter school is that in the current proposal or the future proposal okay yes so in the current year proposal the way that the funding works is there is a one hundred thousand dollar grant that is um appropriated to every county offices basic to every charter that that is eligible for DA They receive And then on the local education agency LEA side it is either $100,000, $200,000, or $300,000, and that's dependent on the LEA's average daily attendance.

So that's the intent for that change. I have interest in that because,

to receive any of this assistance. Is that correct? In the current proposal, yes, but in the budget year proposal, because universal assistance is received to all LEAs, then they would be receiving that universal assistance, but not the targeted.

Yes, the budget year proposal for universal assistance, it is required to be served to all local education agencies free of cost within that county jurisdiction.

The differentiated assistance targeted. So it varies. I think when it comes to differentiated assistance, part of what happens with that county office is that they go through root cause analysis and needs assessments and really trying to get to the layers of what that specific school site needs and what their highest level of support is needed to actually improve student outcomes. So whether that's a greater emphasis on teacher coaching, whether it's more pulling kids to have one-on-one tutoring sessions, like identifying where the greatest needs are specific to that LEAs, how they determine at the differentiated assistance level what support is needed to improve outcomes. So it unfortunately does vary based on each school site, but because of that variance, I think that's why we're trying to reframe how targeted assistance is applied across the state.

So while it could be helpful to have a wider range of racial and ethnic identities based on which data are collected, it is unfortunately not possible to disaggregate the racial and ethnic subgroups further. And the administration actually does we recognize that these subgroups may be smaller and cause an LEA to not meet that N subgroup requirement to actually get the real supports that they need And one of the things that we been that doesn happen in these ongoing discussions is consideration for a new all students subgroup And this also is in alignment with the West Ed report on differentiated assistance that came out is that this all students subgroup could help capture when certain groups are not included in these larger groups that in terms of maybe not in the reporting, but in real life that are a part of these ethnic groups and racial groups. So this all student group subgroup would help capture and it would help them be included in DA, recognize support for universal assistance and so on.

Where did that calculation come from? Yeah, so happy to take that question as well. So with the $200,000 increase, so because of the bulk of funds are based on ADA throughout the county office, we wanted to be respectful to the actual new workload that is gonna happen at every county, regardless of the size. So that $200,000 increase does come alongside this new requirement to have universal supports that are gonna be proactive across the county office. So, yes. Directly related to cost. Yes, it was an intentional inclusion. related to the new workloads.

Correct.

Sade and Ari with the Department of Finance. I'll first begin with an overview of the Universal Meal Program projections and then move to the Kitchen Infrastructure Grant Program. The governor's budget includes $1.8 billion Proposition 98 general fund in 2026-27 to support the Universal School Meals Program. The program established in 2022-23 aims to improve children's health and learning, reduce stigma around free meals, and combat childhood hunger by providing access to high-quality school-free meals per school day for all TK-12 students. These resources support a projected total of 910 million meals in 2026-27 and is inclusive of a 2.41 COLA, which added $22 million ongoing Proposition 98 general fund. The Governor's budget estimate reflects a decrease of approximately $70 million when compared to what was projected at the 2025 Budget Act due to actual meal counts coming in approximately 50 million meals lower than what was estimated at the Budget Act. The reduction is due to right-sizing costs to align to revised projections that incorporated six months more of actual meal counts and not due to reduction of service for students. These governor budget estimates assume that there will be some continued growth in meal counts before leveling off with anticipated growth drivers, including the continued ramp-up of breakfast programs since prior to the universal meal implementation, Not all schools offer breakfast programs and an increase in meals served due to increased awareness of the program and a higher quality and larger variety of meal offerings as a result of recent investments in both kitchen infrastructure and freshly prepared meals. Now I will turn to the Kitchen Infrastructure Grant Program. To date, the state has invested approximately $910 million one-time Proposition 98 general fund to support kitchen infrastructure upgrades, equipment, food service staff training, and related school nutrition activities. The governor's budget builds on these prior investments by proposing an additional $100 million one-time Proposition 98 general fund for a fourth round of grants to expand the kitchen infrastructure and training grant program to more schools and help schools provide more freshly prepared meals with locally grown ingredients to students. While the KIT grant has historically supported the implementation of universal school meals, these funds are intended to provide additional flexibility for schools to meet student needs. Like previous KIT grants, funds can be used to support kitchen equipment, infrastructure and staffing and training for food service workers. However, given the federal policy impacts, the proposal also allows funds to support resources and implement innovative strategies to increase access and participation of meal programs for students who are or may be experiencing food insecurity. The grant will be structured similarly to the most recent 2025 round and will be awarded on a competitive basis to schools under the following prioritizations. High poverty schools as defined by schools operating under the federal community eligibility provision or provision two, schools that were not awarded previously KIT funds and schools that have spent a majority of their previously awarded KIT grants, but would like additional funds to do further kitchen infrastructure grades. This funding reflects the administration's commitment to improving access to and quality of meals served to students in California. That concludes my remarks I'm joined by my colleague Paula Tang from Door Finance. We're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Sarah Cortez with the LAO. We recommend rejecting the fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training funds because the second and third rounds, which is $755 million, are still being spent or still being awarded. Given the wide range of allowable uses, there's cooking equipment, service equipment, refrigeration, training, staffing costs associated with procuring food, it is really difficult to say what the unmet need is. If the legislature provides funding in the future, we recommend funds be restricted for specific goals set by the legislature and that data is collected to measure progress towards achieving those goals. That concludes my remarks.

Kimberly Rosenberger with CDE. We're appreciative of the continued investments for our universal meals and kitchen infrastructure. We did a UC Berkeley Nutrition Policy Institute. It was funded by the State of California study and capture the opportunity, challenges, and impacts. It's currently administering a 2025 follow-up survey and LEAs have until May 1 of 2026, so soon to complete. And we anticipate preliminary results, but we have from our 2021 and 2022 surveys and some outside surveys indicative of the needs, both on deferred maintenance and where the investments are. And I think it's important to note that when we had our 2022 kit study, what was really telling was that they used them on not infrastructure but big purchases. But with each big purchase, they had to do some kind of maintenance improvement or repair. And it's largely because, as determined in a 2022 survey of school nutrition, our school kitchens aren't really set up for scratch cooking. They don't really have the infrastructure. So it's not that there isn't a need. It's just that it's such a large undertaking that many are focusing on the short-term investments of cooking equipment purchases, refrigeration and storage, service equipment purchases, and transportation. We don't think that indicates a lack of need for investment of deferred maintenance. It's simply addressing the now versus the long-term investments. However, we have seen from our 2022 report an increased meal service efficiency, increased lunch participation, increased meal service capacity, breakfast participation, and many variety. The benefits are evident, even with those short-term investments, but there's also the schools are facing the reality of higher costs and inflation. And so for instance with the 2021 dollars there wasn a time sensitive spending And so we did see them sit on dollars to kind of look for repair and investments to save because they were inevitable that they would need those dollars We do think the funding needs are there, but with the variability and the reliability, schools sometimes are thinking of both a long-term, short-term investment strategy. when we there's also the 2020 study on UC Berkeley Center for Cities and Schools that indicated that California schools don't have the equipment and aren't designed to scratch cook. That doesn't mean that the desire is not there, as we can see by the participation we've had in the school programming. We are expecting to get more data in, but there was an extension through June, so we won't have that until later this year. The barriers that exist to school construction and bond funds for better supporting kitchen renovations are the same to what we're facing in California as a whole. Delays in local approval, state architect need, procurement delays, outdated electrical and high cost of construction being one that often has to be remedied even with short-term purchases such as refrigerators. There's competing priorities within LEA for bond funds and kitchen updates are often deferred. So school needs are ongoing funding. We don't think that by continuing to invest, these dollars won't be used. It's just that a lot of the planning and need that goes into this are multi-year. And so to further restrict those funds would prevent the kind of long-term investment needed to have kitchens that are serving the kind of food and the kind of scratch cooking that the legislature so desires. We also want to note that in light of HR1 reductions to the social safety nets, including food programs, the increased role of schools providing food for students is something we expect to see in 2027. We have 62.5 of our 5.7 million public school students eligible for free and reduced price meals. We don't see that declining despite declining enrollment. Our school nutrition programs are essential to ensuring nutrition security for students. And again, when we saw the withholding of funds and federal tactics to go after certain targeted demographics, schools were the hub to ensure that students were fed, that families knew that they had a warm meal for their children. And we think these investments go a long way in not just supporting the community, but also improving student outcomes since they aren't hungry. While we must work within the parameters of the federal requirements for the national school lunch and school breakfast programs, there are actions that schools can take, including implementing shared tables, partnering with community organizations, looking at school bell schedules, and ensuring adequate seat time and other meal service streamlining. That concludes my remarks, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

So the Nutrition Policy Institute received funding to report on opportunities challenges and impacts and outcomes of the universal school meals So that will be preliminary results will be this summer.

the deferred maintenance wasn't an included data piece in that.

Hi, Kim Frenzel, Department of Education and Nutrition Services. So the Nutrition Policy Institute, it's kind of a landscape evaluation, so they've looked at the 22-23 school year and the needs there, and then they will repeat that. And so May 1st is when that evaluation closes, and they expect in the summer that they'll have those results. So they'll ask similar questions, as Kimberly had reported out, on some of the areas and the needs that schools have around equipment, staffing, and training. And I'll just add, if you think about where the state is going with eliminating ultra-processed foods of concern, but also thinking about the cost of putting a fully nutritious, complete meal in the hands of a student, that it's very costly with inflation and utility cost, equipment cost.

So there is a value that these are competitive grants that started in 2025 for the KIPP funds and requirements to have spent a certain percentage of their previous KIPP funding. But if you look at some of the kitchens and the age and the size, in order for them to continue to gear up for serving all of the meals, of breakfast and lunch each and every day. They simply don't have some of the space or the facilities or the equipment, and if they have multiple sites and they're trying to do more scratch cooking, they need to expand those kitchens. So the funding doesn't go.

So we do have some information. I think the question you were asking about the June is we are going to have data after May revise, but starting around June, on how the 2022 funds were spent, we have gotten out of the 1,000-plus participants, about 174, that have reported their expenditures already, and we expect around June to see a much more robust increase. But to the 174, there is a consistent theme of the four categories of allowable use. New purchases are the priority over repairs. But with those new purchases, it often coupled with infrastructure improvements So they like chipping away at some of the repairs with those big investments but the majority of their spending is on the cooking equipment the service equipment But again this is of the 174 out of 1 So right now we're seeing a pattern, but that could change later this summer when we get greater numbers of reports.

Yes.

Yes. So the, for this round, it's mirrored similarly to the 2025 or the most recent round. And so our prioritization for, for this round is again, high poverty schools. So schools that are under the community eligibility provision or provision to, as well as schools that have not previously been awarded kit grants to prioritize them as well. And then subsequently after that schools that have, obligated the majority of, if they have received KIPP funding, have obligated the majority of the award that they have received. So I'm curious, and you can add more to that,

Of the 174 that have reported, I don't have that breakdown with me, but we can certainly get that to you. But since priority was given to those schools with community eligibility, they would be the higher need schools.

Yes. Thank you. Paula Tang with the Department of Finance. I just want to add to what my colleague said. So she had mentioned the prioritizations, but under the current proposal, local educational agencies that operate a federal school breakfast program or a federal national school lunch program would be eligible for the funds. In addition to the others that were mentioned. So this is a minimum eligibility and those are the priorities.

Correct. So under the governor's budget proposal, there is language to allow for innovative strategies to support students who may be or are food insecure. And so the allowable, the allowable language of that will be ultimately up to the determination of what schools are able to, up to the determination of the department, but innovative strategies is the language that would allow that.

There are restrictions federally on grab and go meals that we would have to comply with if we are commingling the funds. And so that often presents barriers to, certain innovation because the state dollars alone usually aren't sufficient to fund the meal entirely, and they do rely on federal dollars, which have greater restrictions.

Yes, please. And Paula Tan with the Department of Finance. I just want to add, so this proposal for the Kitchen Infrastructure Grants is funded by Proposition 98, and so I think the intent, while the federal programs do have those restrictions, the administration's intent is that this funding is more flexible. So if there are innovative strategies, such as a food pantry, then our goal is to help provide that funding for schools to implement.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And just want to amplify the chair's comments around innovation here. So I appreciate the comments here from all our panelists. We know that a number of our community colleges are meeting students where they are, serving over two-month students, a lot of food insecure students. And the past couple years, I've had a chance to visit the food pantries at Rio Hondo College, at East Delhi College, Valley College, a number of community college institutions. And with the expansion of dual enrollment programs and other opportunities, I think anything we can do around innovation around Prop 98. So I just want to clarify the chair's comments. Thank you.

Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Erin Taylor with Political Solutions on behalf of the Girl Scouts of California, standing in strong support of the administration's proposed investment in the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, which plays a critical role in ensuring California students, especially those in underserved communities, have access to safe, enriching, and developmentally meaningful experiences beyond the traditional day. Through Girl Scouts After School Clubs, we are proud to partner with school districts across California to offer programs that complement in school learning while focusing on leadership development, STEM exploration, life skills, and community engagements. These clubs not only align with ELOP goals, but also expand access to experiences that empower youth, particularly girls, to discover their strengths and build skills. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. My name is Nora Stewart, speaking on behalf of Friends of the Earth and a coalition of over 100 school districts and nonprofits. I just wanted to speak to item three, universal school meals and kit funding. Friends of the Earth we offer free technical assistance and support over 100 districts in California to expand their plant organic and local meal offerings And we strongly support the continued funding for Universal Meals and KIT This committee is correct to identify school meals as a critical part of the social safety net especially in light of HR1 and other changes. Thank you very much. Just one thing, our coalition supports Assemblymember Robert Garcia's budget request for a $1 million one-time general fund. Thank you.

Good afternoon, shared members. My name is Natalie Shin here on behalf of Californians Together. We support the vision of shifting eligibility for DA to three years and aligning with LCAPS, but have significant concerns about the proposal striking the eligibility requirements. We align our comments with our equity and management partners and want to emphasize that any new criteria should be focused on student growth and closing achievement gaps. The criteria must include indicators like the English Learner Progress Indicator and Growth Model to fully track the progress of English Learner students and reclassified students. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Kashif Kumar with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of the Plant-Based Foods Association. We just wanted to bring attention to the fact that due to federal changes, we can now offer plant-based milks as an option in schools. And Assemblymember Robert Garcia has a $1 million request from the General Fund to offer that to 10 different school sites. We're hoping this committee will consider that. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Sam Nasher here on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education. We support the governor's proposal to invest $1 billion into community schools. However, the proposed budget trailer bill risks reducing funding for the highest-need schools, including over $230 million in losses for Los Angeles County. We urge you to protect the strong 65% poverty threshold and hold harmless schools serving the highest-need students. We also ask you to maintain equity guardrails and differentiate assistance and assure community schools funding remains dedicated. We've submitted a detailed budget letter to the committee outlining these concerns and recommendations. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez, Assemblymember Fong. Alex Anae Velasquez with the Department of Finance. The administration does not have a comment on this issue. However, we're happy to answer any questions related to the governor's budget proposals. And that concludes my remarks, but I'm happy to take any questions.

Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez and Assemblymember Fong. Natalie Gonzalez with the Legislative Analyst's Office. This item focuses on options for providing one-time funding to CSU campuses that have relatively large amount of enrollment growth, including options to expand enrollment in health care programs. We have two initial comments. First, we'd encourage the committee to keep in mind that enrollment growth is an ongoing cost. Once a new enrollment slot is filled and the associated staffing is hired, ongoing out-year cost pressures are created. Second, with projected out-year deficits on the horizon, we'd caution against launching new programs or notably expanding existing programs, including in the healthcare fields. Ramping up programs one year, then withdrawing funding the next, could be disruptive. Thank you and happy to take any questions at the appropriate time.

Good afternoon Chair Alvarez and Assemblymember Fong I Mark Martin representing the CSU As was stated we here today to talk about enrollment and healthcare workforce programs and how one funding might be helpful in both of those areas So I going to give an update on enrollment what we working on and thinking about over the next couple years with enrollment and how we could use one funding to support that work My colleague Nathan Evans will provide some information on healthcare workforce programs that we are developing that one-time funding could help accelerate. I do want to make one pitch quickly for one-time funds for facilities. You've heard it off from me before, but we do have $8 billion in deferred maintenance and $31 billion in capital outlay plans. A lot of those facilities issues are access issues. We have plans for more buildings that would help increase STEM and healthcare programs and a lot of buildings that are at less than capacity because of deferred maintenance issues. But on to enrollment. Overall, I think, you know, enrollment is very strong at the CSU. We've had three years of growth. We're now actually over our funded enrollment target. We've beat the last three years of Budget Act targets, and we're on track to meet the governor's compact goals. We appear likely to grow by about 12,000 FTE in this current year, in a year in which we receive no new ongoing funding, and we expect to end the year at our highest FTE level in history. But as you know, this enrollment is uneven across the system, and it presents problems at both ends. The universities that have lost enrollment over the last few years see less tuition revenue and are struggling to meet costs and increase outreach and reform programs to attract more students. Those that are over capacity are struggling to meet all student needs. And so the system is working hard to address both extremes and balance the needs of all universities. It should be noted that all campuses, big or small, high demand, or seeking more enrollment are all struggling to meet costs. And we distribute funding to address all kinds of issues, including utilities, employee health care costs, facilities, insurance, et cetera. So there are a lot of fixed costs on all campuses that we're struggling with. Under-enrolled campuses, as the chair mentioned, have developed turnaround plans, and those campuses are doing extensive outreach, reforming academic programs, and focusing on retention. Most of these campuses expect to grow FTE over the next three years, and for many, their enrollment targets will be reduced and they are assuming flat or reduced general fund. The goal is to get most of these campuses back to or very close to being funded for actual enrollment. Over-enrolled campuses are receiving support in several ways. Our reallocation plan is shifting ongoing state funding to these campuses. For the budget year for 26-27, another $26 million will be moving from five campuses to 12 campuses. This will complete a three-year plan that has shifted nearly $90 million in ongoing funding. In addition, the Chancellor's Office has distributed one-time funding to 10 universities during the past two years, totaling $40 million. The idea is to use one-time funding to supplement the reallocated ongoing funding as we work to close the funding gap in the system. One-time money has allowed the universities to increase courses, including expanding summer. Some of the universities are using one-time money to pay faculty who are retiring to kind of stay on as part-time faculty for a few more years. So they found creative ways to use that one funding to meet student needs in any given year So that kind of where we are Now I talk a little bit about where we going Assuming the governor's budget level of funding, we will use state funding to add about 3,500 FTE in 2627. That should allow us to hit or come very close to the governor's compact goal around access. And that funding would be distributed after the budget is signed, and our priority would be to provide the funding to the overextended campuses. So for 26-27, we will shift the final portion of this $90 million reallocation to over-enrolled campuses and distribute about $58 million to those same campuses to support growth. In the meantime, most of the under-enrolled campuses expect to increase enrollment without additional state funding. This would be our plan for 26-27, and given the timing of the budget cycle, it would be difficult to make major changes to that plan for the budget year. And we do want to talk to this subcommittee and the legislature about the longtime LAO recommendation around talking about enrollment in budget year plus one, just because of the obvious kind of challenge between the admission cycle and the budget cycle that is never aligned and always difficult for us. So I do hope we can talk about sort of the next few years as we talk about this. Next week, our board will discuss a new strategic enrollment management framework. This is the first system-wide enrollment plan the CSU has ever had. This will be our guiding document for the next several years and is an overall framework and philosophy on enrollment as we continue to face demographic changes, emerging state workforce needs, and changing student demand and needs. This plan will also consider regional enrollment trends and drivers as CSU universities serve regions, and regions have significant differences, including the number of traditional college-age population, college-going rates, economies, workforce needs, adults with some college but no degree, cost of living, housing, etc. So there will be a real significant regional focus. This is a significant effort and aligned with the CSU Forward Strategic Plan, which is moving the CSU to be more innovative in the kinds of programs it offers, how it serves different types of students across the state, and how it evolves to better meet state workforce needs. In fact, state workforce needs will be a key consideration as we determine future enrollment distribution. Reallocation will continue in some way in the future. The goal is balance across the system with enrollment funding tied to actual enrollment. This imbalance started before COVID, was exacerbated by COVID, and will take time to resolve. But we will work to resolve that. In addition, I would say one-time funding would be helpful to provide the high-demand campuses some relief in 2627. One-time funding can continue to help as a bridge between the current state of enrollment funding across the system and our efforts to better align funding and actual enrollment. One-time investments can help campuses in the short term meet the needs of students and the state by adding courses, expanding summer, or supporting other efforts like equipment needs to ensure that students remain on track for timely graduation. I'm happy to answer questions about any of this, but I'll now turn this over to Dr. Evans, who will discuss other options for one-time money that could support the creation or expansion of healthcare workforce programs that we know the state badly needs. Dr. Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez and Assemblymember Fong. Thank you for the opportunity to offer my comments. As was shared, my name is Dr. Nathan Evans. I serve as Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Today's hearing is intended to consider how some one-time support could help the CSU increase enrollment and specifically ask us how such support could facilitate workforce-oriented expansion, especially in both physical and mental health care. And truly, that is the exact question for this moment. Such investments would be fully consistent with CSU forward. As shared by Chancellor Garcia with this committee in February, our new strategic plan commits the system to flexible career integrated learning pathways, stronger transfer and credit mobility, affordability and access, and statewide workforce impact. It frames the CSU as California's socioeconomic mobility engine and emphasizes that when California needs workforce solutions, the CSU can mobilize collectively across our 22 universities. We take that commitment seriously, and I offer four opportunities immediately that this type of investment could deliver on that objective. First would be expanding nursing opportunities, specifically RN to BSN and concurrent enrollment pathways. CSU already has a strong statewide platform. Nursing programs at 20 universities award more than 3,000 Bachelors of Science in Nursing degrees a year. And as validated by the collaborative regional work in L.A. County last year, the fastest near-term growth opportunity is through expanding associate degree to BSN and concurrent enrollment between community colleges and CSU, because those pathways are more scalable and less constrained in other models. These 2-plus-2 transfer models honor and build upon the more than 80 community college programs and leverage our existing RN to BS and PASS as the most cost-effective model for students and the state. Second, another opportunity would be to expand certified wellness coach pathways. Building on recent investments by the California Department of Healthcare Access and Information, HCI, this is a smart, scalable, undergraduate-oriented growth strategy because it creates accessible entry to behavioral health fields and workforce, and it can directly connect to our strategic plan's goals around flexible pathways, career relevance, and economic mobility. The programs also create clear on-ramps to graduate education in fields like social work and other adjacent areas, while helping campuses respond quickly to state workforce demand. That's a kind of stackable design is exactly what the direction of CSU Forward and our engagement of employers points us toward at this moment. A third opportunity would be resources to expand capacity in psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner preparation. This is a graduate-level investment, so it will affect fewer students than undergraduate nursing programs, but it addresses a high-need workforce shortage and can be intentionally aligned to our undergraduate programs. The EDD projects nearly 49% growth in nurse practitioners in California by 2023. by 2033. Growth in graduate programs must be targeted in demonstrated areas of workforce need, as is the case in this critical area. And finally, an investment in developing a multi-campus physician assistant consortium. This is another graduate degree opportunity, but an important one. The use of physician assistance is a key strategy for our healthcare partners to meet healthcare demand, particularly in rural communities. PA roles are expected to grow by 30% in the next few years in California and CSU Forward emphasizes leveraging system scale cross coordination and resource sharing A PA consortium model fits that framework perfectly because it lowers duplication builds shared infrastructure and allows our campuses to move together in response to state workforce needs rather than each campus trying to solve it alone. All of these are areas of critical need and concern for Californians. growing our health care and mental health care workforce presents a pragmatic and principled strategy for investing in CSU enrollment. The four examples I shared are poised to be accelerated, creating the ability to enroll more Californians in programs that support our students, their families and their communities. Because graduates from these programs and from the CSU more broadly stay in California, serving their neighbors, empowering the state. The need is real. The L.A. County Nursing 2035 report, a shared project between the CSU and the 19 community colleges in L.A. County, showed right now there are fragmented ADN to BSN pathways, faculty shortages, and an imbalance in clinical placements that are favoring private institutions. That report recommended strengthening transfer routes, expanding public capacity, and investing in clinical placements. California doesn't need to invent new strategies. We need to scale and accelerate the right public ones. So thank you for considering these examples of health-related and workforce-aligned programs. Mr. Martin and I would welcome the opportunity to hear your thoughts and address any questions you might have. Thank you.

Yes, Natalie Gonzalez with the LAO. So when we make our recommendation regarding providing funding specifically for enrollment, we look at the CSU's funded level and then how many additional students we would set as the target and then using the marginal cost formula to determine how much funding would be needed to fund those additional slots. and then that funding would go specifically to enrollment. And that's kind of how we think through the enrollment funding. It's separate from a just general base, unrestricted base increase. And that's just to remind me or correct me if I'm wrong on this. the marginal cost takes into account all costs and also cost increases through CPI index or some other index, inflationary index. Yes. I would defer to CSU specifically about what is in their marginal cost rate, but the rate that we take is produced by CSU, but we take the state share of it. Okay.

Yes, Jennifer Pacello from the Legislative Analyst's Office. So the marginal cost was agreed to by the LEO Finance and CSU way back when You could update it make some refinements to it But in essence it is trying to capture what the additional cost is for adding a particular student So it has a faculty element, academic support, physical plant maintenance element, a wraparound student support that goes beyond just academics like the library. So if we were to use that mechanism, formula, if you will,

He funds UC for 1.4% growth, just for context. So our recommend, and CSU says that that governor's budget target of 2.1% is a bit high. They think they can grow, but they don't think they'll reach that target. So we would recommend you go with either what CSU thinks it can do, which is about 1.4% growth, which is similar to UCs, or you go a little bit lower. And the reason we suggest you at least consider going a little bit lower is that high school grads are projected to go down this spring. And so that pressure that would normally be there isn't there. So we did provide staff some cost estimates if you wanted to be at any of those levels, 2.1%, 1.4%, all the way down to 1%. And you can, the costs are somewhere like you don't have to add anything to you. I have to add something like $30 million. It's a little bit complicated as to why you don't need to add anything, but if you're interested, we can walk through that.

Yeah. I'll make a couple comments. just on the marginal cost, I would just note, and I think UC has said this too, we do hope at some point in the next few years we can revisit the agreement, because I think that was made in the 90s maybe, and we've just essentially been adding inflation. We do now have basic needs services. We're trying to improve and increase STEM programs, healthcare programs. So we have a lot more services that we're providing students, and we have more costly programs. And so anyway, As an aside, we would love to revisit that at some point in the near future. That may be a project for all of us in the future for sure.

Yeah, I think our budget plan is about 1%, which was the plan we developed in the fall. We've grown so much in the last three years that I think it would be difficult to grow much beyond that in the next year. But we're certainly open to talking to the legislature about what you feel like. But we are kind of on track to grow enrollment at the campuses that have high demand, reallocate funding to those campuses. Obviously, the lower campuses that have struggled over the last few years are also trying to grow, too.

Well, I think what our plan, you know, we have about $325 million in sort of mandatory cost increases that things like health care premiums or insurance, utilities, et cetera. So that's, you know, kind of those are the kind of mandatory costs we have to pay for, regardless of how much the state provides us. In addition, we have the board has identified priorities around employee compensation. We have open contracts with all of our labor partners, and we want to make sure we go to the collective bargaining table and provide fair salaries and wages for our employees. We have strategic plan initiatives, some of which I've talked about over the last couple months in terms of changes in programs and different bachelor's degrees and that kind of thing. And then we do have enrollment as a priority, but I do think we are. The challenging thing, I think, around enrollment targets over the last few years is that we've had sort of multiple targets. We have the governor's compact, which sort of wants us to grow 1% a year for five years. However, that sort of started in a year when we had lost significant enrollment sort of coming out of COVID and with the community college enrollment decline. We have had numbers in the budget bill that were multi-year targets to get us back to kind of above where we had fallen down. And then we have our kind of historic tracking of state funding and our enrollment. And so we, CSU believes we are now going to end this fiscal year sort of about 3,000 FTE above our sort of funding level for enrollment. And so we are aware of that too. And so we feel like the kind of 1% growth is sort of the appropriate amount to do in this coming year.

Yeah, the reallocation plan was, as you mentioned, a three-year plan that goes through the budget year. What we will be doing this summer and fall, I think, is the board will start in May talking about this framework and continue that discussion through the summer. And so I think, I'm not sure I can tell you exactly how this will play out, But I think the framework will allow us, again, this is sort of the first time we've had this system-wide enrollment plan. I think for decades, CSU sort of had every campus was sort of slowly growing. Some were bigger, some were smaller, but it was all kind of going in the same direction. Obviously, we are now in a much different place where we do need to think more about the system

Yeah, I asked that question because one of the comments was made that, to the extent the legislature is interested in one-time funding for 2627, given that you've already got, you know, and again, not in any attempt to create disruption in acceptance as an enrollment is already sort of set. But if there was one-time funding for growth for those five campuses that you've identified yourself and that the data shows, one-time funding as was stated, we were reminded by the LAO is not ongoing. So students aren't students for one year, students for four years in some cases, ideally four years in some cases too, because they're transfer students in some cases longer. So I'm trying to understand if the legislature were to identify one-time funding for 2627 for growth in the high demand campuses, whether there'd be the commitment from the CSU to ensure not in 26, 27, but in 27, 28, for one example, as an example, just because I have this one up Channel Islands, which is a smaller size, but they have a negative, 649 less students than the targeted is what their turnaround plan identifies. I believe the marginal costs, we talking about about per student is what we it a rough estimate So we talking about in this case is it $6 million, $64 million? So I'm trying to understand if we make that decision this year in this budget, will the CSU then ensure that the campuses have the ongoing resources with the commitment of even just taking the turnaround plans and I think there's a Delta there, will that be identified so that the campuses can make those decisions, not based on a one-time, one-year allocation, but knowing that that growth will actually be there? Because what I'm hearing from campuses, we have limited amounts of resources to grow, and therefore we cannot accept more students, even if more students would like to come here. And that's, I do not want to get the CSU in a place where we hear from our families on the UC system that they're not able to get into the system for any number of reasons. So do you think that will be part of the conversation? What kind of commitment could be made that if there is one-time resources that the ongoing resources will follow.

Okay. I think one additional step that would be important is to understand with all of these, we could probably just figure it out with a little bit of time here, but I didn't do this ahead of time, but identify still what the difference is from targeted enrollment to actual enrollment. Even in the best-case scenarios, that's what these turnaround plans would deliver. And again, still seeing some shortcomings in meeting the targeted enrollment. And so being mindful that all those things need to be addressed, that there are some costs that are unavoidable, that all of that happens. still there needs to be that commitment that if the decline is happening and the growth is happening in other places, that you are fully funded to be able to accomplish that. So that's something that I hope to see in the reallocation conversation as part of the strategic enrollment framework that you all will be discussing. I would hope that you share with your board that there is some interest in one-time funding to achieve the gap for those growth campuses in this one year, but that means there needs to be that commitment for the ongoing funding in the following year So let me now ask about these high demand Thank you Nathan for being here I know there been some talk about some partnerships but this is something that I'm interested in understanding what investments need to be made to, in those, I think there was four or five particular sectors that you mentioned in order to accomplish that. Like, what are we talking about?

What was the investment that HCI made on that?

But we got 11 programs out of it?

Okay. The reason we want to talk about that is, you know, the next item is UC, and there are some requests, budget requests on, again, very workforce deficient programs or high demand, I guess I should say. And we wanted to give the same opportunity for the CSU system to see if there are potential opportunities to identify other programs and invest in a similar way So anything else that you may be able to provide on that front before budget action concludes, be appreciative of hearing what that would be.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And the question I had was around the one-time investment. I know the Chair emphasizes this as well. The possibility of the one-time investment to support expansion and support expansion at Pomona, San Luis Obispo, San Diego, Sacramento, Long Beach, and our campuses. But really, last year I had a chance to take a tour of CSU Pomona and just really meeting with leadership there and meeting with the faculty and the staff. So that's a campus that on our chart here on page three has shown the largest growth. But at the same time, we know that a number of campuses are struggling. So I'm glad to, not glad. But the turnaround plans and other things that are in place, I look forward to future conversations around that as well. But to follow up on the chair's comments around what would it take to effectively support the growth and expansion of a one-time investment? Is there a number that is out there?

And just to get the CSU's commitment as well on this is if there was a one-time allocation for investment on the expansion request, how would CSU continue the momentum with the core funding in the future?

And thank you for that context. Appreciate that.

continue the discussion with the legislature. You know, we have looked at sort of scaling costs to different, like I said, much of what I described, we're building in over time, but this would allow us to accelerate some of that to your point, to address some of the most immediate needs. So we'd be happy to sort of provide some concepts around the four I shared as well as some others that might certainly impact the healthcare workforce across the state.

Absolutely. And I want to acknowledge the tremendous partnership of the 19 community colleges that are part of LARC, partnered with the CSU and the five CSUs that are in L.A. County. And we all had skin in the game in trying to assess the current reality of the nursing workforce in L.A. County, worked with national experts in sort of mapping that, surveyed the major employers. I referenced several of them earlier and really developed a comprehensive plan, acknowledging sort of what the challenges were, what the realities are. And not only for each of the educational segments and the employers, but also the citizens in this case of L.A. County, where the majority of degrees being awarded are often coming from for-profit institutions in L.A. County. And that the pathways via the community colleges to the CSUs, as well as UCLA also has a nursing program, and the nonprofit independents really are much more cost-effective. So identifying opportunities like the need for some type of intermediary to help sort of bridge higher education to the workforce. So our colleagues at Kaiser Permanente or Providence Healthcare or Dignity Health don't have 100 institutions coming at them looking for clinical placements to sort of stand up those needs. So that was one area. Better mapping sort of consistent associate degree to bachelor's degree. You know, for example, even in L.A. County, the number of units required for the associate's degree varied by more than 20 units across the 19 community colleges. Having greater sort of consistency, even in the two-year space, would allow greater throughput to the four-year institutions. And so just a range of different examples that have come forward. Our group continues to meet and are now moving that to the implementation phase, pursuing not only opportunities like this, but also philanthropic and other regional support to advance some of the recommendations.

Thank you.

It is moving 5% of FTE. I think the first two years of the plan moved 3% per year, and then this coming year, it's 5%.

Yeah I not sure exactly the percentage I mean it coming from five campuses So I think those are the campuses that are yeah I believe that right 5 or higher under underneath And it's moving to 12 campuses that are over their target.

Yeah, the dollar amount that's moving out of that campus is $10.4 million. And that reallocation is happening with the other campuses that I don't have before me, but I know that there's growth in several of them. I think Fullerton, Pomona, San Diego. San Marcos. San Marcos. Yeah.

I don't think we, that is not being considered right now. I think we'll, you know, we obviously, once we get the kind of budget at the end of June, the process typically isn't, there will be a memo that will go out in July that will sort of distribute funding. And I think the decisions will be made then about how much. But I would say I think the two years that we've provided sort of this one-time funding, that has been difficult. That's money that could be going to deferred maintenance or other things. And so I think there is not that plan for 26-27 as of right now.

Yeah, because at this point we're not planning on another round of one-time funding in 26-27. We provided it in 24-25 and 25-26. In part, particularly in 25-26, when we received no new ongoing funding, that was... It would have been more challenging to do so.

Okay. We will, I think, continue this conversation.

Appreciate all of you for your presence. And we will now continue on to issue number two, which is the UC proposals on some enrollment opportunities for new programs And I ask the Department of Finance to come forward the Legislative Analyst Office Yes, and several representatives from the University of California. I will allow you all to strategically speak in the order you need to. We do have four of you, so let's be mindful of that and focus on our conversation. I think we're going to have a conversation also about common course numbering following up, excuse me, on the conversation we've had prior. So, finance, do you want to go first? Yes. Alex and I have a last question with the Department of Finance. Similar to issue one, the administration has no position on this item, but happy to answer any questions related to the governor's budget proposal. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll kick it off with UC.

Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez. I'm Dr. Dina McCray, the Associate Vice President for Academic Health Sciences at the University of California. Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding our request to strengthen the California's health care workforce in service of the state's communities most in need. The University of California is home to 21 health science schools spanning seven professions. The UC Regents requested $5.5 million in ongoing funds to establish and sustain enrollment growth for four new health professional programs at UC Davis, UC Berkeley, UCSF, and UC San Diego, each designed to directly address California's most critical workforce shortages in the communities with the greatest unmet need. We're grateful that the subcommittee is considering providing $11 million in one-time funding to help us launch these programs. These programs are modeled on the UC Medical School's prime framework, Programs in Medical Education, which has produced physicians dedicated to underserved communities for over 20 years. Consistent with the governor's multi-year compact with UC to support high-demand health care pipelines, We have extended this proven model to additional health professions. When fully implemented, these four programs will train approximately 120 new health professionals annually, each committed to practicing where Californians need them most. I'm going to briefly summarize how each of these four programs will address our state's health care needs. I'm going to start with oral health care needs in California. Only 36% of Californians report having adequate access to dental services. Some communities experience greater access problems than others. Dental practices remain concentrated in middle and higher income areas. For our Medi-Cal patients, nearly 80% of California dentists will not take their insurance. The UCSF School of Dentistry's DDS Aspire program builds on UCSF's existing curriculum and prior one-time state funding to recruit and graduate dentists committed to serving high-need communities such as in the San Joaquin Valley. At full enrollment, the program will train 42 new dental students annually at a cost of $1.9 million ongoing, one-third of which will support student financial aid. our pharmacy workforce needs. Pharmacists are often the most accessible point of entry into the healthcare system, uniquely positioned to improve vaccine uptake, medication adherence, and chronic disease management. But there's a growing shortage that exists, particularly near California-Mexico border where migrant and immigrant populations face significant barriers to care. The UC San Diego Skaggs School of Pharmacy's Prime RX program understands the critical need to recruit and train future pharmacists who are committed to serving these vulnerable communities and delivering critical preventive and disease management services. As one of the top pharmacy schools in the nation, UCSD School of Pharmacy has the faculty, the infrastructure, and deep community partnerships in place perfectly positioned to launch and sustain Prime Rx and address health disparities in California's border communities. The program would enroll 40 PharmD students at a cost of $1.8 million ongoing, 60% of which supports student financial aid. Our state also has gaps in eye care. The prevalence of visual impairment and blindness is projected to double by 2050, driven by an aging population and deep inequities in access to eye care. The demand for eye care is rising, but the workforce supply is not keeping up. There are four counties without any eye care provider at all, Alpine, Sierra, Inyo, and Mariposa. Without intentional investments, this mismatch will exacerbate access gaps, particularly in rural and low-income regions. UC Berkeley School of Optometry is home to the only public optometry school in the state and is ranked number one in the nation. Its OD access program will recruit and prepare optometrists dedicated to delivering high-quality vision care in underserved communities, communities, enrolling 20 students annually at a cost of $0.9 billion ongoing, one-third of which would be directed towards student financial aid. Last but not least, veterinary medicine. Veterinarians are California's frontline defense against zoonotic disease, food safety failures, and biosecurity emergencies, but California has the lowest number of veterinary graduates per capita among states with veterinary schools. A projected shortfall of approximately 200 large animal practitioners by 2030 poses serious risk to public health and to California's agricultural sector. Dairy products and cattle are top commodities, generating billions in revenue each year for the state. UC Davis, the only public veterinary school in California and the top-ranked school in the nation, wants to establish DVM-SERV to recruit and retain veterinarians in rural and agricultural shortage areas, including the Central Valley, Northern Rural California, the Inland Empire, and Imperial Valley. The program would enroll 20 DVM students annually at a cost of $0.9 million ongoing. Critically, UC Davis will contribute 38% in tuition coverage. This investment is not just about training students. It's about expanding a health workforce dedicated to providing care to communities across the state. The need is documented. The model is proven. Faculty expertise, institutional infrastructure, and community partnerships are already in place across all four campuses. With this investment, the University of California can launch programs that will train more than 120 health professionals annually, each with a deep and enduring commitment to serve the communities that need them most, reducing health disparities, strengthening public health infrastructure, and delivering meaningful lasting returns to the people of the state We respectfully ask for your support and welcome any questions Thank you Thank you very much

Sir, if I may quickly review the artificial intelligence, the other proposals in your agenda.

Yes. I'll try to be brief. For the record, say over 10. for the University of California. The second proposal in front of you is for $10 million in one-time funds for an artificial intelligence initiative. AI represents unprecedented opportunities and challenges for our institution, our state, and society from how we teach and research the future of work. UC's 10 campuses, six academic health centers, and three affiliated national laboratories provide an opportunity to leverage our collective data and computing power at a massive scale to address significant real-world problems. The University of California has been a leader in defining AI landscape from precision medicine and robotics to climate science and energy grid management. In addition to research and innovation and the difficult and pressing problems, we will adopt our curricula to equip today's workforce as well as the next generation with the fluency to navigate AI augmented world, ensuring that the economic opportunities created by this technology are accessible to the diverse population of our state. In addition, we will ensure that our faculty and staff have the tools and resources to augment the critical work that they do for the University of California. Historically, our work has been characterized by specialized research at individual campuses, and we now want to move beyond individual campus efforts to leverage our collective knowledge at a massive scale. And the third proposal in your agenda is for $10 million in one-time funds for student disability services. every UC campus has a disabled student services office and approximately 11% of UC students receive accommodations for a disability. The percentage of students with disabilities has been growing much faster than the overall UC student population. The population of students with disabilities registered with the UC Disability Support Service Centers increased by 190% between 2014 and 2021, 2021, demonstrating higher rate of growth than the population of their non-disabled peers, which grew at 17.5% during the same period. With this growth, campuses have struggled to meet students' needs. In January of 2024, the UC Systemwide Advisory Group on Students with Disabilities released a report outlining recommendations to address specific ways the university could support students with disabilities. If the university is provided funding, this work group report will serve as a guidance for meeting student need. Because these are one-time funds, campuses would focus on assistive technology and digital access, as well as temporary employees, such as ASL and Braille interpreters and translators. And the fourth proposal in your agenda is for $4 million in one-time funding for proof-of-concept work. This proposal would

Good afternoon, Chair Alvarez. I appreciate the opportunity to speak about ongoing intersegmental efforts on Common Course Numbering, or CCN. My name is Dave Volz. I'm a professor at UC Riverside and currently chair of the UC's Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools, otherwise known as BORS, a system-wide academic senate committee that oversees all matters and policies specific to undergraduate admissions across the UC system. As a faculty member for nearly 17 years, I've had the privilege of educating and interacting with thousands of undergraduate students, including many transfer students from the California Community Colleges, or CCC, system. Moreover, I've had the opportunity to mentor, guide, and support transfer students outside of the classroom. and based on my experience as a professor and as a transfer student myself 30 years ago, I'm sensitive to the challenges that students face when attempting to transfer from a community college into a four-year university, as well as the importance of ensuring that students are sufficiently prepared and set up for success within upper division coursework after transfer. For these reasons, I have a strong interest in providing the Academic Senate leadership on efforts, including CCN, to help decrease inefficiencies and streamline transfer admissions within California. Over the last couple of years, the CCC's Academic Senate convened discipline-specific CCN faculty work groups that consisted of intersegmental faculty who were charged with developing CCN templates for courses within the humanities, social sciences, and STEM. CCN templates contain essential information about the description, content, objectives, outcomes, methods of evaluation, and representative texts for courses that are common across all 115 CC campuses. Once developed and approved, a system-wide CCN template is then used by curriculum committees at each of the 115 CC campuses to develop course outline of records or cores that align with a single approved CCN template and define the expected content and objectives for a course, regardless of who teaches the course. Based on the existing process for articulation review, CCN templates within Phase 1 were reviewed last year using cores as the basis for articulation determinations. As a result of these articulation approvals, 14 templates from six courses within phase one represent more than 1 courses currently offered to students at the CCCs as of fall 2025 Roughly 80 percent of these courses were approved for Cal Calgetze areas meaning that students enrolled in any of these courses can transfer general education units to any UC or CSU campus regardless of which community college the course was completed at. Last year, the CCC Chancellor's Office communicated the desire for a single CCN template rather than 115 cores to serve as the basis for articulation review for a CCN course. However, at that time, it was unclear whether existing CCN templates contain a sufficient level of detail to determine whether CCN courses meet the standard for baseline transferability to the UC and CSU. Therefore, UC determined what information gaps on a CCN template, if any, have the potential to drive articulation denials. We then worked directly with the CCC's Academic Senate leadership to identify what modifications would be needed to increase the chances of articulation approvals without having to rely on cores, while at the same time ensuring that CCN templates were not prescriptive to the point that they encroached on academic freedom for CCC faculty. CCN faculty workgroups then reviewed and, when needed, upgraded the Phase III templates. Based on this proof of concept using revised Phase III templates, we concluded that current and future CCN templates have the potential to serve as the basis for system-wide articulation review and determinations, if enough detail is included, to meet articulation standards for UC's baseline transferability. Therefore, as a result of the tremendous amount of progress and effort that the CCC's Academic Senate and CCN faculty workgroups have made over the last nine months or so, The UC is now in the process of working with academic senate leadership within the CCC and CSU systems to develop a unified intersegmental vision and process for articulation review of system-wide CCN templates that mirror the existing workflow and process for articulation review. In closing, over the last year, we've had incredibly productive faculty-driven intersegmental negotiations and partnerships that have, one, resolved information gaps within CCN templates, two, significantly increased the chances of articulation approvals on the basis of CCN templates, and three, developed a system-wide articulation review mechanism that builds upon existing processes and ensures that the core serves as a default for review in the event a CCN template is not approved for articulation. As a result, I'm optimistic that we're moving in the right direction and that our efforts will significantly streamline transfer of courses and corresponding units from the CCs to the UC and CSU, resulting in positive impacts for transfer students in California moving forward. Thank you for your time.

I mean, I'm speaking on behalf of the Academic Senate. I know Hanmi Yun-Wu is going to speak to requests specific to assist, which is critical for the success of CCN. Because that's really where the rubber sort of meets the road in terms of articulation and communicating to students that the courses that they're taking can actually transfer.

Yes, for the record Hanmi Yun-Wu with the University of California. The request for ASSIST as the official statewide database for online resource and transfer articulation is intersegmental so it's equally funded by by the three public segments, as well as the state is funding the members of the AICCU. But this 10.6 million, we have a staff comment in the agenda of UC provided a copy of a 10.6 million dollar request proposed by the regents to facilitate the common course.

It's for three enhancements, student facing enhancements to the assist system, which would be for the statewide system. So it would benefit all the system as well as all the students.

Chair Alvarez, the funds for the assist system flow through the UC budget. The three segments, UC, CSU, and community colleges contribute to that routine maintenance. This funding request is for system upgrades, one-time technology upgrades for student facing interface.

I mean, I guess the way I would respond to that is, as it is right now, that each of the community college campuses submits a course outline of record, which is more detailed than a CCN template. And when they submit that, they route it through the chancellor's office, within the community college chancellor's office, and then that goes to UCOP. And there a team within UCOP that makes an articulation determination for baseline transferability that are based on the faculty criteria on the UC side But that determination at the UCOP level, that's a system-wide baseline transferability determination. And then from there, it goes to the campuses, the CSU campuses, as well as the individual UC campuses. and they have the opportunity to review that as well. But from what I understand, at least on the UC side, is that the vast majority of cores, the course outline of records, if they're approved system-wide, then they're usually approved at the campus level. And so what we're working on right now, I'm working with Senate leadership on the CCC and the CSU side to envision, like I mentioned in my testimony, a unified intersegmental vision of how the CCN template articulation process would occur in terms of the review. And a lot of it just piggybacks on the existing process for the course outline of record. But the key difference is that we're including basically a fail-safe mechanism that would still rely on these course outline of records because they're going to continue to be submitted. And so if a CCN template, for whatever reason, if there's not enough detail or whatever, ends up being denied for articulation, then the default would be back to the COR, the core, for that particular campus, for that student that's taking that course at that campus. So they'd still be able to transfer. It just wouldn't be on the basis of that CCN template.

Yeah, potentially. But I think, you know, the CCN templates definitely help resolve that issue because it is a single unified template that's system-wide, not only within the California Community College system, but also it ends up being system-wide in terms of the transferability, assuming that the campuses are on board with that. But I guess, you know, one thing I want to communicate, too, is that, you know, I think we there was this question about whether there was enough detail on the CCN templates for the articulation folks to be able to make a determination. And that's where we ended up working with the Academic Senate leadership on the CCC side over the last nine months or so, really to figure out kind of where that sweet spot is in terms of ensuring that there's enough information on the CCN template without going to the point where you're effectively just replicating the core, but also without going to the point where you step on the toes of the CCC faculty in terms of academic freedom. And we figured that out. And we've already done a, well, UCOP has already done a preliminary review of phase three templates after these sort of negotiations and us trying to figure this out. And a large majority of the CCN templates, based on these revisions, would end up receiving articulation.

Thank you, Chair Alvarez. The UC Regents approved a request for $5.5 million ongoing for these programs because they are students who would start and then we would hope to admit new classes and continue the programs indefinitely. We were told that the committee may be willing to consider one time funding for us. So we looked at what do we need to launch these programs? And it was approximately double the funding, but over a more extended period of time, so four years. That would allow us to get those programs off the ground, admit students into the program, and then by the time the funds were expiring, we would have enough data to start showing some success to the legislature and have a discussion about making those funds ongoing.

And I ask that because I know in other instances,

We would try to fundraise for them in order to reduce the need for future state contributions. and if we were able to do that successfully, we might have enough to continue the programs without coming back to the state.

Correct.

That there are four counties without any eye care providers, and so it's Alpine, Sierra, Inyo, and Mariposa.

So such as optometrists. So anyone who's going to address the eye care needs, and because of our aging population, Unfortunately, our workforce supply just cannot keep up with a growing demand.

So to your point, we have evidence that shows if you recruit from that community, say you start having pathway programs and exposing high school students to the profession, and then you track them, you provide support and guidance along the way. They become part of your health professional school. They're from there. They've trained there. They have ties there. they're more likely to stay there and provide care to those communities.

Correct.

They're also going to find training sites. The evidence shows that if they actually train in the community and develop ties with everyone there, they're more likely to stay there. So we're basing all of these programs on evidence and proven models.

So they're still determining exactly where and how they would have the curricula implemented. However, yes, we have the excellent Berkeley faculty who have the expertise and ability to train all of these students, but then their clinical experiences will be out in the field in the communities.

Your optometry degree. Optometry degree.

So, for example, our San Joaquin Prime. San Joaquin Valley Prime program within the medical school that's sponsored by UCSF. So we have medical students that may do didactics, and they're in the regular classroom setting, but then we start integrating them with the community. So they are from the San Joaquin Valley. They've gone through their education, and then they go into the community-based clinics and the hospitals there. They're training there. And so they get all their experiences there, and then it's more likely that they're going to stay and do the rest of their residency and then also stay and become a licensed clinician.

Who's going to supervise them? Correct, and so that's part of what the funding would go towards is identifying faculty. So there is such a huge need, and faculty is a challenge in terms of finding the right supervision. You're absolutely right. And so there's a lot of people who are using their work time just to network, and then they're trying to incentivize individuals to go out into those shortage areas and then become faculty and develop training.

Yeah. So for the iCare one, it would be 20 students annually.

The funding request is a $9 million, which is rounded up to a million. For 20 students, it's $50,000.

0.9, yes.

The tuition for optometry is, I have it right here, for a first-year student, it's typically $51,000. That's just tuition.

the direct costs Chair Alvarez the state subsidy that we requesting would be per student Okay And on the PrimeRx one I think you said a cohort of 40 students annually

Okay.

So for DDS Aspire, they did get one-time funds, and then they're starting 10 students this fall of 26. The rest of the prime programs would start fall of 27.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Vincent Rosso here representing the University of California Student Association, but also here speaking on behalf of our counterparts at the UC Graduate and Professional Council, collectively representing over 300,000 students across the University of California. We're here just in really strong support of the legislature fully funding the compact for the University of California system. I appreciate your time.

Good evening. My name is Iman Majid, Director of Fiscal Advocacy for the California Community College Chances Office, here to express our support for UC's $10.6 million budget request for ASIST. ASIST is a critical and essential tool that is helping advance transfer reforms, including AB 928 and Common Course Numbering. At the same time we would emphasize that Common Course Numbering is already well underway with prior investments supporting implementation across all higher education segments The proposed assessed investment will strengthen data transparency across individual institutions. This complements but does not replace AB 2236, which focuses on establishing a system of articulation solution. Both proposals will help reduce student confusion.

Good afternoon. My name is Kenya Juarez. I'm here with California Faculty Association. I'm one of the student interns, and I am from CSU East Bay, one of the smaller campuses. I'm here to really urge you guys to oppose the further funding of the reallocating between campuses as it hurts campus' ability to rebond and grow. Coming from a smaller campus that will be significantly impacted by this reallocation of funding. funding. I find it very personally, and I know it's going to impact us more than it already has. On my campus, there has been programs that have been cut because of the lack of enrollment, which also stops the support that students get already, which is cutting the amount of students that they accept into these programs, which only hurts our university even more because of the funding. Unlike largest CSU campuses, smaller campuses do not benefit from this economic of scale. Even modest enrollment loss credits, significant campus dis-stabilitation that can include the layoff of faculty and staff, which we already have seen, especially on my campus. For smaller campuses, layoffs, staff, and faculty simply may not return. The loss of institutional knowledge and student support capacity has long-term and consequences for student success. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mario Lerero with the California Faculty Association. Just wanted to highlight the issue of campuses that have experienced funding reallocation from their campuses due to not meeting their goals, right? They still have students that they have to serve. And these cuts, we believe, do not take into consideration economies of scale. For example, San Francisco and some of the more rural campuses experience higher expenses due to their location or labor. We would also point out that even K through 12 systems acknowledges minimum funding models that recognize the need to serve students where they are even if enrollment is lower than it expected For these reasons we really have concerns about any further reallocation. We think it would hurt students and it would cost jobs.