Connect with us

California

The Future of Higher Education Enrollment in California

Published

on

The Future of Higher Education Enrollment in California


CCC’s uncertain future

As part of its projection of future transfers from the community colleges to CSU, the Enrollment Demand, Capacity Assessment, and Cost Analysis for Campus Sites study provides a pre-pandemic perspective on the future of community college enrollment (HOK et al. 2020a, HOK et al. 2020b). The study projects that community college enrollment among students taking 12 or more units per semester—a key indicator of the likelihood of transfer—would drop slightly from 2017 to 2035, with growth in the Central Valley and Inland Empire and declines in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Alternatively, in its five-year capital outlay plan released in February 2024, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office projected 1.7 percent enrollment growth, an increase of over 24,000 students, from 2024–25 to 2028–29 (CCCCO 2024). While these differing projections reflect uncertainty about community college enrollment, increases over the past year suggest that growth may be possible. What does seem certain is CCC’s need for additional funding for capital facilities to accommodate any enrollment growth.

UC, CSU, and CCC Face Capital Facilities Funding Challenges

Historically, UC and CSU received capital facilities funding via voter-approved General Obligation (GO) bonds or lease-revenue bonds. However, no GO bonds have been approved since 2006. Funding streams have shifted since the systems were granted expanded debt-financing authority; funding now comprises a complex blend of debt instruments and revenue sources, including state bonds and loans, investment income, private investment, student fees, and philanthropy. It must be noted that CSU campuses have significantly less access to these sources than UC.

Local CCC districts—which have long made most of their own capital finance decisions and have the authority to tax and borrow—have been able to cover their capital needs. Still, all three systems have consistently stressed the need for capital facilities funding to support future enrollment growth. This need has not been sufficiently addressed in recent budget and compact targets, and state funding will likely be more difficult to secure given an uncertain budget future (UC 2023b, CSU 2023b, CCCCO 2024).

There is no state plan to address identified capital renewal needs, and the systems are facing growing maintenance backlogs (LAO 2023). Furthermore, the systems have all identified unmet funding needs for the construction of new facilities to accommodate growing student populations. SB 28, a bill that would have placed a $15.5 billion GO bond to fund K–16 facility construction on the March 2024 ballot was ultimately shelved. Future support for expanding student housing, in particular, remains uncertain. While the governor’s proposed budget for 2024–25 includes funding for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant (HESHG) program, which supports additional housing projects and helps maintain affordability among existing units, it also suspends significant investment in the California Student Housing Revolving Loan Fund Program, which provides zero-interest loans for below-market-rate student housing projects.

Advertisement

In short, the state’s higher education systems are likely to continue to face significant shortfalls in much-needed capital facilities funding. Long-term development plans from the UC, CSU, and CCC suggest enrollment growth is a priority, but accommodating this growth requires sufficient capacity, which in turn requires funding.

UC and CSU Have Developed Growth Strategies in the Context of Capacity Constraints

As we have seen, UC and CSU have struggled to meet the short-term goals laid out in their multi-year compacts, and they may face longer-term headwinds due to changes in the state’s demographics. And even if demand rises due to increases in A–G completion, the systems may face persistent supply and capacity constraints. Promisingly, UC and CSU have strategized several ways and implemented various initiatives to promote enrollment growth, addressing demand-side challenges by expanding opportunities for students to access their institutions, and addressing supply-side challenges by using current capacity more efficiently.

Both UC and CSU have prioritized expanding intersegmental collaboration. In its 2022 Budget Compact Report, CSU cited multiple efforts to boost enrollment, including a new partnership with the Los Angeles Unified School District, as well as planned collaboration with CCCs to expand dual enrollment opportunities (CSU 2022). UC’s 2030 Capacity Plan explicitly highlights the system’s goal of increasing enrollment at campuses in the San Joaquin Valley and Inland Empire through various intersegmental and outreach efforts, including collaboration with the community college and K–16 systems to streamline freshmen and transfer pathways.

Both systems have explored ways to increase transfers from community colleges, piloting dual admissions programs that guarantee admission for community college students who were not initially admitted as freshmen applicants, and expanding pathways through their respective Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program, Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG), University of California Transfer Pathways (UCTP), and Pathways+.

Removing barriers to access is also a priority. Many programs and campuses at UC and CSU are impacted, meaning they receive more eligible applicants than can be accommodated. This, in turn, results in stricter admissions criteria that makes it more difficult for otherwise-eligible students to be admitted. Some CSU campuses have recently discontinued impaction, removing stricter admissions criteria for many of their programs in an attempt to address low yield rates among redirected admits and increase enrollment among qualified applicants.

Advertisement

At the same time, UC and CSU have embraced non-traditional growth strategies to increase enrollment in the context of current capacity constraints. Reducing the time it takes students to earn degrees not only helps campuses achieve their multi-year compact goals to increase graduation rates but also allows more new students to enroll. To reduce the time to degree, CSU and UC are providing more effective and tailored academic supports, offering expanded advising, improving their curricula, and scaling policies and practices that worked well during the pandemic.

The systems have also explored increasing online, summer, and off-campus offerings—including study abroad programs, off-campus internships, and partnerships with other institutions. Together, these efforts allow campuses to take in more students without having to expand their physical capacity.



Source link

Advertisement

California

Opinion | Our house burned down but our mortgage didn’t. California fire survivors need time

Published

on

Opinion | Our house burned down but our mortgage didn’t. California fire survivors need time


By Rachel Jonas and Robert Fagnani, Special for CalMatters

The aftermath of the Palisades Fire, as clean-ups and infrastructure repairs begin, in Pacific Palisades, on Jan. 14, 2025. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Commentary written by

Advertisement

We were supposed to celebrate our younger son’s first birthday in our backyard on January 11th, 2025. Instead, four days before his party, we watched the Palisades fire take our home. We’d packed what we could, put our kids in the car and drove to Tennessee to live with family because we had nowhere else to go.

Our house is gone. Our older son’s preschool is gone. The library, the restaurants, the small routines that made up a life are all gone. What remains is a mortgage on a property that no longer exists and a rebuilding process that every expert we’ve spoken to says will take two to four years, minimum.

We did not expect to become advocates. But in the months after the fire, we kept running into the same impossible questions from other families — questions about forbearance, credit and what their mortgage servicer was actually required to do. Nobody had clear answers, so we founded Disaster Mortgage Relief and have spent the past year listening to hundreds of families across the Palisades and Altadena navigate a financial system that was simply not built for what we are living through.

That experience is what brings us to Assembly Bill 1847. The California Bankers Association recently argued that this bill — which would extend and strengthen mortgage protections established under last year’s fire emergency mortgage relief law, AB 238 — could end up restricting access to credit. 

We want to engage with that, because we think it gets the situation almost entirely backwards.

Advertisement

AB 238 gave people whose homes burned up to 12 months of mortgage forbearance. But the rebuilding timeline in the Palisades and Altadena is not 12 months. Debris removal, utility restoration, insurance disputes, permit approvals, contractor shortages and construction inflation have made this a multi-year process for virtually everyone we work with. 

The original forbearance framework was built around a recovery timeline that does not exist in reality. Now that fire survivors’ forbearance periods are expiring, we are watching the consequences in real time: Families who were current on their mortgages before the January 2025 fire — who followed every rule — are seeing their credit scores fall by 200, 300, even 400 points. 

Some are being pushed toward foreclosure. Some are being handed balloon payments of $100,000 or more, due at the exact moment they are trying to finance construction.

This is not a story about irresponsible borrowers. These are teachers, small business owners, young families who made these neighborhoods what they were. Most still desperately want to come home. But the financial pressure is forcing many of them out for good.

We understand lenders need predictable rules and functioning credit markets. California cannot solve one crisis by creating another. But the greater threat to future lending is not temporary forbearance; it is mass borrower failure, collapsing credit, abandoned rebuilds and neighborhoods that never recover.

Advertisement

AB 1847 does not forgive debt. It does not eliminate lender rights. It does not tell banks they won’t be repaid. It allows payments to be deferred during rebuilding and moved to the loan’s back end. 

The CARES Act, which gave borrowers of federally-backed mortgages up to 360 days’ relief during the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrated that similar structures were operationally feasible on a national scale. 

For many families, freeing up two or three years of principal and interest and applying that money to construction is the difference between rebuilding and permanently leaving. It requires no taxpayer money; it simply restructures debt that already exists so families have a realistic chance to come home.

In our case, my family is still in Tennessee, saving every dime we can to hopefully afford to rebuild the home we lost.

Climate events are no longer temporary and localized. They destroy entire communities at once and displace families for years. The financial infrastructure around homeownership needs to catch up to that reality.

Advertisement

The question before California is simple: when disaster survivors are trapped between a destroyed home and a mortgage system that no longer matches modern recovery, will we force families into financial collapse or adapt the system to the world we now live in?

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.



Source link

Continue Reading

California

Tesla driver infamous for Southern California road rage attacks sentenced in Hawaii case

Published

on

Tesla driver infamous for Southern California road rage attacks sentenced in Hawaii case


A Tesla driver infamous for a series of road rage attacks caught on camera in Southern California has been sentenced to seven years in prison after he was convicted in a similar case in Hawaii.

Videos from 2023 that went viral show a pipe-wielding man getting out of his Tesla and striking vehicles on Southern California roads.

Nathanial Radimak was arrested early that year for a series of attacks, was convicted in two road rage incidents and served time behind bars in California. Now he’s headed to prison again in Hawaii for a similar attack.

  • Tesla road rage driver appears in Hawaii court

Two of Radmark’s Los Angeles-area victims reacted to the 40-year-old’s seven-year prison sentence, longer than even the prosecution requested.

“I feel that justice has finally been served,” said victim Beth Lamprecht during a press conference Tuesday.

Advertisement

“For years, there were pleas to keep this dangerous individual from hurting others. While those warnings went unheeded, today we finally have accountability,” she continued.

Those victims and attorney Gloria Allred argued that Radimak should not have been free in the first place.

He was sentenced to five years in prison in Los Angeles County and released after a year, according to the Department of Corrections.

Allred said he received credit for time served while awaiting sentencing and good behavior.

There are reports that Allred raised on Tuesday that Radimak was released early from California custody because of overcrowding.

Advertisement

He committed this latest attack in Hawaii while still on parole.

“It highlights a painful reality, one’s individual criminal behavior can impact communities across multiple cities and multiple states,” victim Vivian Romero said.

In the Hawaii attack, which was caught on camera, Radimak was seen zipping past a mother and 18-year-old daughter trying to parallel park.

The daughter yelled “slow down” out of concern. The suspect was then seen turning around, approaching their car, punching the 18-year-old and, when mom Diane Ung gets out furious, he punches her in the eye.

He pleaded no contest to two assault charges.

Advertisement

“For the first time in a long time, we all can breathe a little easier knowing that he will have time he needs in a space away from the general public,” Lamprecht said.

At the sentencing hearing in Hawaii, Radimak said he regrets the assault there and takes accountability and said he needs treatment. His attorney argued he has a long history of undiagnosed schizophrenia and other mental illnesses and struggled with side effects from his medications.

KTLA has reached out to the Department of Corrections and the Los Angeles County District Attorney to see if they will try to extradite Radimak for parole violation.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

California

California chemical tank crisis updates. What happens next?

Published

on

California chemical tank crisis updates. What happens next?


play

The worst threats from a damaged chemical tank in Southern California have passed, with authorities saying a major explosion was no longer imminent, but evacuations are still in place amid continued risks on May 26.

The damaged tank prompted tens of thousands of evacuations near Garden Grove, California, in Orange County, south of Los Angeles, starting on May 21. The tank, which stores a toxic industrial chemical, overheated and caused pressure to build up.

Advertisement

Officials have previously said the crisis would lead to a catastrophic explosion or a spill of the roughly 7,000 gallons of methyl methacrylate at the GKN Aerospace manufacturing facility.

By May 25, they were more optimistic.

“The most catastrophic and worst-case scenario was mitigated and resolved,” said TJ McGovern, interim chief of the Orange County Fire Authority, in a news conference the evening of May 25.

The potential for the most serious crisis was averted after officials discovered a crack in the tank, which relieved significant pressure and the likelihood of a BLEVE, or a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion.” The evacuation zone was reduced on May 25, but still covered about 16,000 residents, the fire authority said.

“Residents have been displaced from their homes, businesses have been impacted, and I am relieved that many of you will be able to return home,” Garden Grove Mayor Stephanie Klopfenstein said. “Garden Grove will get through this together.”

Advertisement

President Donald Trump, on May 25, signed an emergency declaration at the federal level.

Thousands of residents can go back home after explosion risk mitigated

Tens of thousands of residents were removed from the evacuation zone as of the evening of May 25.

As people return to their homes, the Environmental Protection Agency said it was conducting air quality tests, which so far were in the clear for harmful exposure to residents, federal on-scene coordinator Chris Myers said.

Advertisement

Many who evacuated have been staying at shelters set up to house the displaced, and some slept in tents or in their cars nearby. They spent their Memorial Day holiday away from home. At Freedom Hall, a structure at Miles Square Regional Park in Fountain Valley, Michael Friedman told the USA TODAY Network he was tired and frustrated after evacuating from his home on May 22.

“Everyone’s doing their best,” Friedman said. “They really are, but it’s like it’s not like being at home.” 

Nancy O’Leary, who lives in a senior facility in Garden Grove, slept near Friedman at the shelter. Despite the situation, O’Leary was thankful for how helpful she said others were.

“Oh, you have no idea the friends you make in here,” she said. “Sticking together. It’s wonderful.” 

Advertisement

The risk is not over. What happens next?

Officials said the residents under the most recent evacuation orders live in an area still at risk from the tank. More work will need to be done before the evacuation is lifted entirely, Orange County Fire Authority incident commander Craig Covey said.

Teams are checking the temperature of the tank every 30 minutes, hoping to confirm a downward trend that would indicate risk is lessening. In the smaller risk zone, Covey said there is still a potential for fire.

In the meantime, residents were urged not to enter the evacuation zone and to keep close watch for updates.

“Nothing is worth risking and endangering your lives by trying to go back to your home while an evacuation order is still in effect,” said Sen. Adam Schiff of California. “Don’t put your lives at risk, and don’t put the lives of first responders at risk by getting in their way.”

Contributing: Paris Barraza, Daniella Segura, Dinah Voyles Pulver, Christopher Cann, Thao Nguyen, Ani Gasparyan and Brian Day, the USA TODAY Network

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending