California
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.
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.
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.
The body of singer Oliver Tree was back in California this weekend after he was listed as a passenger on a helicopter that crashed above Rio de Janeiro one week ago.
His social media accounts on Sunday afternoon announced the return of his body after the June 14 collision of two helicopters, which killed all six people on board.
“Oliver is now back in California where he can finally rest,” the post said.
According to The Associated Press, police identified the five other people as Gaspar Prim Díaz, a popular Argentine YouTuber known as Gaspi; another Argentine, Lucas Vignale; and Brazilians Lucas Brito, Charles Marsillac and Alexandre Souza.
The cause of the collision was under investigation. The AP reported last week that authorities were investigating the possibility of human error by a pilot or air traffic controllers.
Tree, 32, had been performing in South America as part of a world tour. He had a show scheduled for June 6 in São Paulo, according to a schedule on his Facebook page.
The post Sunday thanked fans and supporters for an outpouring of devotion to the memory of the quirky and uplifting artist.
“The constant love, support and positivity is helping the family, friends and collaborators make it through these extremely difficult times,” it said.
Tree, whose real name was Oliver Tree Nickell, was from Santa Cruz. His father, Jesse Nickell, said he learned of his son’s death from a producer working on music with him in Brazil.
“Peace be with Oliver,” he said by text last week.
Tree was recognizable for his bright fashion, mullet haircut with prominent bangs, thin mustache and encouraging outlook. A motto on his Instagram account says, “No matter how strange you think you look, no matter how ugly you feel, you are beautiful.”
Tree also worked with marquee names in pop and electronic dance music. His biggest tracks were “Life Goes On,” which peaked at 71 on the Billboard Hot 100 in 2022, and “Miss You,” with German musician Robin Schulz, which peaked at 84 on the chart the same year.
Tree’s influence spread beyond chart data, however, and tributes poured in far and wide following last week’s news that he was on the passenger list of one of the aircraft.
The post on his social media accounts said he had been working on an endowment that would produce a grant and that the plan would be moving forward.
“‘Dr. Oliver Tree’s Extremely Epic Grant For Baby Geniuses’ coming soon,” the post said. “We will make sure his wish comes to fruition so that more joy, love and art can be spread into the world, that was his final wish.”
Speaking on the “Zack Sang Show” on YouTube in April, Tree discussed the grant and said his music was likely to be more valued after he died.
“That’s when people appreciate you, when you’re not there anymore,” he said.
The Instagram statement offered some assurance.
“Your legacy will live on forever,” it said.
California property owners can expect the nation’s steepest insurance premium hikes this year.
Nevertheless, that surge will leave California property owners paying below U.S. norms, according to my trusty spreadsheet‘s peek at a report by policy tracker Insurify. Its numbers reflect what private insurers charge to cover properties across all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
For Californians, that means an estimated 16% jump in premiums for 2026. It’s the biggest jump in the country, four times the 4% hike a typical American faces.
Years of rising property damage are largely behind this, with the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires as the latest example.
After California, Nebraska is seeing a 13% increase, followed by New Mexico at 11% and Georgia at 10%. Meanwhile, policies are actually getting cheaper in Hawaii and Massachusetts (down 2%) and Maine (down 1%).
Relative bargain
Please do not be mad at me for relaying this insurance math.
Even after the 2026 increase, California property insurance remains a relative bargain compared with the rest of the country.
Lower California rates are one reason why many property owners have trouble finding coverage. State insurance regulation has made it difficult for insurers to raise their rates, even as their costs and risks surge.
Owners who cannot obtain insurance coverage most often use the state’s FAIR Plan. Those premiums are expected to rise by 29% next year.
Note that Insurify projects the average annual premium in California for 2026 will be $2,843, ranking 21st-highest among all states.
Do you know of many housing-related expenses where you can say California prices are 7% below the national norm?
The most expensive premiums are found in Florida at $8,458 per year, followed by Oklahoma at $5,205, Louisiana at $5,035, Nebraska at $4,560 and Texas at $4,529. These states face high risks from hurricanes, tornadoes or hail.
The cheapest insurance is in Vermont at $1,094 annually, followed by Maine at $1,359 and Utah at $1,370.
Even cheaper?
Keep in mind, the average Californian is insuring a very expensive property.
California insurance policies commonly cover $488,000 in repairs, according to Insurify. This is the second-highest amount among the states and 43% above the national average of $342,000.
Only Hawaii is higher at $500,000. The lowest policy coverage is in Oklahoma at $292,000.
Stack up what homeowners pay against how much coverage they get, and California’s pricing looks even more reasonable.
This premium-to-coverage ratio indicates that the typical Californian pays 0.6% of the coverage offered. That ranks No. 30 among the states and is one-third below the nation’s 0.9% ratio.
The highest ratios are in Florida (2.6%), Oklahoma (1.8%), Louisiana (1.7%) and Texas (1.4%). The lows were in Vermont, Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Hampshire and New Jersey, all at 0.4% or less.
Loss likelihood
If you own property in California, you probably already know this, but here’s a reminder of a never-ending risk: natural disasters.
My trusty spreadsheet also reviewed data from various government and industry sources to see how often disasters strike – and how much those ugly events cost. The incidents tracked include wildfires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards and hail.
To grade the 50 states and the District of Columbia on their relative natural disaster risks, five measures were developed that account for the frequency and damage of calamities, weighted against population and geographic size.
When you add it all up, California ranks third for the likelihood of expensive disasters.
Florida is the riskiest state, followed by Hawaii, California, Louisiana and Tennessee.
If you want a safer place, consider Alaska, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, or Wisconsin.
Of course, this is just a simple way to look at a complex problem that befuddles property owners, insurance companies and policymakers alike.
Clearly, these aren’t just California headaches. One-third of Americans live in 10 states with the highest risk.
How often
The history of disasters offers us clues as to where the next one may hit.
Look at the five measures used to create the risk rankings, starting with how often these disasters actually happen.
Using the number of federal disasters declared over the past decade and dividing that by each state’s square miles, California comes in at No. 9.
By this measure, the most disaster-prone are D.C., Rhode Island, Hawaii, Connecticut and Washington state. The least are Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Alaska and Michigan.
Next is the number of major storms per square mile.
California is much lower on this list, ranking 41st. The stormiest are D.C., New Jersey, Maryland, Hawaii and Rhode Island. The calmest are Alaska, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Idaho.
The price tag
Think about what it costs to clean up after disasters. This is a major driver of home insurance premiums.
First, look at the dollar amount of damages divided by the number of people in each state. California ranks ninth-highest for disaster costs per person.
The biggest bills? Louisiana, Hawaii, Texas, Florida and Colorado. The smallest? Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey.
Next, check out the cost per storm. California’s disasters are the fifth most expensive.
The most expensive storms happen in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Oregon. The least expensive are in Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Rhode Island and Kentucky.
Finally, if you look at insurance losses per person, California ranks fourth highest.
The largest insurance losses are in Colorado, Nebraska and Florida. After California, Wyoming is next. The lowest losses are in Utah, Hawaii, Nevada, Alaska and Oregon.
Clearly, the property-loss odds are stacked against Californians.
Skipping the costs
Some property owners take one look at their insurance bill and decide to go without.
LendingTree, using Census housing cost data, estimates 11% of California property owners have no homeowner’s insurance policy.
That’s the 11th-lowest level of no coverage among the states. The national rate is 14%.
West Virginia has the highest share of owners without coverage at 24%, followed by New Mexico at 23% and Louisiana at 21%. The fewest uninsured homes are in Colorado, Oregon and New Hampshire at 10%.
So why do so many Californians still pay for coverage?
Contemplate the estimated California premium against statewide household income to see that the cost is relatively affordable.
This 2.8% insurance-cost burden ranks No. 25 among the states. It’s also one-fifth of the nation’s 3.6%.
The highest burden? Florida at 11%, and Louisiana and Oklahoma at 8%. Lows? Vermont, New Hampshire, Utah and Maine, all 1%.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
- Try Jonathan Lansner’s Substack collection of economic trends. CLICK HERE!
California
California man arrested for impersonating bank official, coercing money from Colorado victim
A 25-year-old California man is charged with three felonies after intercepting a package in Colorado containing $11,000 in cash he allegedly obtained via a computer scam.
Earlier this year, a Mesa County resident contacted authorities after receiving a message. The sender reportedly claimed to be an employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC is an independent agency created by the Congress that insures and oversees the banking industry.
The resident claimed the purported FDIC representative stated the resident’s bank account had been compromised and needed to be secured. The resident was instructed to send cash from the account to an address in southern California, according to the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office.
The resident later chose to stop the shipment. But, according to the sheriff’s office, the box containing the cash was already in the process of being shipped.
A man later identified as Youbin Huang of El Monte, Calif., a Los Angeles suburb, came to the package’s location in Grand Junction and picked it up using documents which contained the Colorado resident’s personal information, per the sheriff’s office.
A nationwide warrant for Haung’s arrest was issued by the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office on Feb. 25. Huang was arrested by the California State Patrol on April 13, according to a press release from the sheriff’s office. Huang was brought to Colorado and booked into the Mesa County Detention Facility on May 10.
Huang is charged with theft, identity theft, and computer fraud, all felonies, and all state charges. He was advised June 11 and posted an $11,000 cash bond to obtain his release from jail that day. He has another court hearing on July 9.
The Mesa County Sheriff’s Office stated in its press release that Huang was “intimately involved in the perpetration of the scam.” It did not specifically state that Huang acted alone, nor if he was the person who impersonated an FDIC employee and communicated with the Colorado resident online.
MCSO recommended Coloradans never give out their personal or financial information to an unsolicited caller, allow remote access to their phones or computers, send gift cards or crypto currency as a form of payment, or send cash in the mail. As well, if they are unsure about what they are being asked to do, call law enforcement, family members, or a trusted friend to get advice.
-
World3 minutes ago
Newsletter: A Commissioner's secret trip to Israel
-
News30 minutes ago
US strike on an alleged drug boat kills 2, leaves 6 survivors, in the eastern Pacific Ocean
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoL.A. heat advisory issued as temps expected to surge through midweek
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoPlymouth’s Channell-Watkins joins local hockey players on PWHL Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoSan Francisco Resident’s Tour of Surveillance Infrastructure Shows System ‘Greater Than Sum of Its Parts’ | KQED
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoArgentina fans gather in Dallas for ‘Banderazo Argentino’ ahead of World Cup match
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoInvestigation underway in Miami Gardens after hit-and-run leaves a man in critical condition – WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoJets were 300 feet apart in Boston close call that forced Delta flight to abort landing, expert says
