Recommendations

California Community Colleges Increasing Full-Time Faculty and Diversity Remains a Challenge February 2023 REPORT 2022-113 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento | CA | 95814 916.445.0255 | TTY 916.445.0033 For complaints of state employee misconduct, contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline: 1.800.952.5665 Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at auditor.ca.gov For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Public Affairs Office at 916.445.0255 This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports Grant Parks State Auditor February 23, 2023 2022-113 The Governor of California President pro Tempore of the Senate Speaker of the Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders: As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office conducted an audit of the hiring practices of community college districts (districts) in the California Community Colleges’ system. Our assessment focused on the use of state funds intended to increase the percentage of for-credit class instruction (instruction) taught by full-time faculty and hiring processes that promote diversity. In general, we determined that the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges (Chancellor’s Office) has not ensured that districts meet legislative goals, use funds for their intended purpose, or implement best practices for hiring a diverse faculty. We found that the community college districts are not meeting the goal established by state lawmakers more than 30 years ago to have 75 percent of instruction taught by full-time faculty. The Chancellor’s Office measures progress toward the goal using a metric that is not suited for the task, and districts have generally not made substantial progress toward the goal during the past 20 years. Our calculations show that the districts’ actual percentage of instruction by full-time faculty can sometimes be significantly lower than the current metric suggests. Further, a lack of oversight by the Chancellor’s Office allowed some districts to improperly use the funds allocated for hiring full-time faculty. Although districts have made some progress in hiring diverse faculty, we found that many students still lack sufficient representation of their own racial and ethnic backgrounds in their community college faculty. For example, the gap between the percentage of Hispanic students and Hispanic faculty has remained significant over the past 20 years. Despite continued disparity, the Chancellor’s Office has not ensured that districts conduct demographic analyses of job applicants as state law requires, and it has not verified whether districts have adequately implemented required equal employment opportunity (EEO) methods before allocating EEO funding to the districts. We identified a number of best practices that can help districts better address barriers to hiring faculty members who represent the diversity of community college students. Respectfully submitted, GRANT PARKS California State Auditor 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916.445.0255 | 916.327.0019 fax | www.auditor.ca.gov iv CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report EEO equal employment opportunity faculty calculation percentage of full-time equivalent faculty FON faculty obligation number Foothill-De Anza Foothill-De Anza Community College District instruction for-credit class instruction Kern Kern Community College District Los Rios Los Rios Community College District San Diego San Diego Community College District CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR v February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Contents Summary 1 Recommendations 5 Introduction 7 Chapter 1 The Chancellor’s Office Should Do More to Monitor Districts’ Progress Toward Achieving the State’s Full-Time Faculty Goal 15 Chapter 2 Increased Oversight and Guidance Could Improve Districts’ Ability to Hire Faculty Who Reflect the Diversity of Their Students 23 Appendix A Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Ethnicity and Gender at Selected Districts, Fiscal Year 2021–22 33 Appendix B Instructional Faculty Hiring and Head Count Data for Selected Districts, Fiscal Years 2018–19 Through 2021–22 37 Appendix C Scope and Methodology 39 Responses to the Audit Chancellor’s Office 43 California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From the Chancellor’s Office 57 Foothill-De Anza Community College District 63 California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From Foothill-De Anza Community College District 65 vi CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 1 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Summary Audit Highlights … Results in Brief Our audit of the hiring practices of districts in the California Community Colleges’ Community colleges perform a valuable role in California’s system examined the use of state funds educational system and economy by bridging the gap between intended to increase the percentage of high school and university for many students and by providing instruction taught by full-time faculty career-related training for those wanting to enter the workforce. and to implement hiring processes that With low-cost tuition and fees, community colleges are a significant promote diversity. source of upward mobility for many Californians. In fact, more than one-third of community college students are the first in their » Districts have not met the long-standing family to attend college. Research shows that students with more state goal of having 75 percent of access to full-time faculty members are more likely to succeed in instruction taught by full-time faculty. school. More than 30 years ago, state lawmakers established a goal to have full-time faculty members provide at least 75 percent of » The Chancellor’s Office has not created a for-credit class instruction (instruction) in California’s community valid way to measure districts’ progress colleges. However, the 73 community college districts (districts), towards the State’s 75 percent goal. which are overseen by the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges (Chancellor’s Office), rarely achieve this goal » The Chancellor’s Office has allocated and, collectively, have not made substantial progress toward it. $450 million in state funds intended to facilitate full-time faculty hiring, Using the Chancellor’s Office’s calculation of full-time faculty— but the Chancellor’s Office has not which, as we describe later, is an inadequate measure of the ensured that the districts use the percentage of instruction performed by full-time faculty—we funding appropriately. determined that only 18 districts have ever reached a point where 75 percent of their faculty is full-time, and no district » Districts have made some progress has maintained that level for more than a few years. Further, in hiring more diverse faculties, but approximately 20 years ago, that metric showed that the many students still lack sufficient systemwide percentage of full-time faculty was 63 percent, but representation of their own backgrounds by 2015 it had decreased to 55 percent. Since that time, despite among the faculty. receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding designated for this purpose, community colleges have been able to increase the • Districts say that a primary challenge proportion of full-time faculty to just 60 percent. is limited availability of representative applicants in the workforce. Although the Chancellor’s Office believes its current calculation of faculty is a valid way to measure progress toward the 75 percent • Eliminating barriers to equal goal, our analysis shows that it is unsuited for that purpose. In fact, employment opportunity (EEO) and our analysis demonstrates that the actual percentage of full-time implementing best practices could faculty instruction at the districts is sometimes much lower than improve the districts’ faculty diversity. the Chancellor’s Office’s metric suggests. Some of the differences between the two calculations are that the Chancellor’s Office’s • The Chancellor’s Office does not verify faculty calculation includes full-time faculty even if they provide whether districts have implemented no instruction, as may be the case with librarians and counselors, the EEO best practices for which they and it includes full-time faculty on certain types of leave. These have received additional funding. inclusions could lead to an overestimate of full-time faculty instruction at some districts. Without a valid metric of instruction, the Chancellor’s Office cannot adequately monitor or report on progress toward the State’s 75 percent goal. 2 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 To increase the amount of instruction by full-time faculty occurring within community colleges, the Legislature allocated an additional $50 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2018–19 and another $100 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2021–22, bringing the added systemwide funding for this purpose to $150 million per year. However, the Chancellor’s Office does not require districts to track and report the use of these funds. In fact, one of the four districts we reviewed knowingly spent some of its funds on part-time faculty costs, which was improper given the funds’ purpose. Another district left funds unspent that it could have used to hire more full-time faculty. The other two districts did not track the additional funding separately and cannot demonstrate that the funds were used to create new full-time faculty positions. Studies also show that students served by a racially and ethnically diverse faculty are better prepared to be competitive in the professional workforce and that instruction from faculty with a background similar to their own can help students from historically underrepresented groups stay enrolled and reach their educational goals. However, community colleges have struggled to close demographic gaps between students and faculty, especially for students who identify as Hispanic.1 Currently, the percentage of students who identify as Hispanic at community colleges is 47 percent, while the percentage of faculty identifying as Hispanic is only 18 percent. Despite increases in the percentage of faculty who identify as Hispanic, this gap has remained significant for at least 20 years due to greater increases in the percentage of students who identify as Hispanic. The districts we reviewed assert that a primary challenge to hiring diverse faculty is limited availability of diverse applicants in the workforce. Some districts find that candidates with sufficient educational attainment are rare in their geographic area, while in others the existence of higher-paying positions elsewhere limits the applicant pool for faculty positions. Districts could address potential sources of underrepresentation in their workforce by analyzing demographic patterns in their hiring and other stages of the employment process, as required by state law. State law further directs districts to review the composition of their initial pool of applicants compared to the pool of applicants who are considered qualified for the position. However, just one of the four districts we reviewed conducted this analysis; the remaining three districts did not do so, and the Chancellor’s Office did not provide oversight to ensure that they met this requirement. Holding the districts accountable for completing this analysis could help improve the diversity of districts’ workforces. Another way districts can increase the diversity of their faculty is by ensuring that they eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity (EEO) in their hiring practices. To accomplish this, the Chancellor’s Office allocates special EEO funds to districts that certify that they have implemented at least seven of the nine methods the Chancellor’s Office has identified for promoting faculty diversity, a group of practices referred to as the multiple methods. Although we found that these multiple methods do align with best practices, the Chancellor’s Office did not verify whether 1 The demographic terminology we use in this report is based on the terminology in the data the Chancellor’s Office collects. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 3 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 districts adequately implemented the multiple methods requirements. In fact, we found that all four districts we reviewed were unable to demonstrate adequate implementation of at least one of the methods they claimed to have implemented. Additionally, the Chancellor’s Office is identifying other best practices beyond the multiple methods that can increase faculty diversity in the districts, but it has not always been effective at encouraging districts to implement them. For instance, over the past several years the Chancellor’s Office has recommended in various publications that districts establish policies to diversify their hiring committees. However, only two of the four districts we reviewed have done so. Further, we identified additional best practices that districts can adopt, as we describe in Chapter 2. The Chancellor’s Office needs to focus its efforts by identifying the most important best practices for increasing faculty diversity and incorporating those practices into its multiple methods process. Because districts must demonstrate that they have implemented seven of the nine methods in their public EEO plans in order to receive EEO funds, they will be more likely to adopt newly identified practices if they are included in the multiple methods. 4 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 5 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Recommendations The following are the recommendations we made as a result of our audit. Descriptions of the findings and conclusions that led to these recommendations can be found in the chapters of this report. Chancellor’s Office To monitor districts’ progress toward the goal of having at least 75 percent of their hours of instruction provided by full-time faculty, by February 2024, the California Community Colleges Board of Governors and the Chancellor’s Office should develop, implement, and report on a metric of instruction that calculates actual instruction hours taught by full- time and part-time faculty. To ultimately achieve the goal of at least 75 percent of instruction taught by full-time faculty, the Chancellor’s Office, by February 2024, should set increasing annual benchmarks for the amount of instruction by full-time faculty at the districts, with the goal of achieving an appropriate target percentage within five years. The Chancellor’s Office should also develop a mechanism to promote compliance with its benchmarks. To ensure that districts appropriately use the funds designated for hiring full-time faculty, the Chancellor’s Office should do the following by August 2023: • Require each district to report to the Chancellor’s Office in November of each year on the number of full-time faculty positions filled and maintained with the funds allocated for that purpose in the prior fiscal year, the percentage of the funds used in the prior fiscal year, and the cumulative total of the funds used and unused since the initial allocation in fiscal year 2018–19. Each district should also include in the report its progress toward meeting the goal of at least 75 percent of instruction by full-time faculty. • Implement a policy to annually synthesize the information from the districts into a systemwide report and post it on its public website by January of the following year. • Implement a policy to verify that the districts are using the funds for their designated purpose. To ensure that districts are performing analyses needed to identify and determine the causes of any underrepresentation in the faculty they hire, the Chancellor’s Office should, by August 2023, implement a policy to verify that districts conduct the required demographic analyses of their employment processes. To improve faculty diversity at all districts, the Chancellor’s Office should, beginning in fiscal year 2023–24, require districts to implement all of the multiple methods to receive EEO funding, and it should create a process to verify proper implementation of a selection of the methods to ensure compliance and consistency. 6 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 To improve faculty diversity at districts, the Chancellor’s Office should, by February 2024, implement a policy to regularly determine the most effective and feasible best practices for districts to implement. It should then update its multiple methods process to include those selected best practices when it conducts its evaluation of district EEO plans once every three years. Agency Comments The Chancellor’s Office believes our audit report does not accurately describe the limitations of its authority to oversee and direct the actions of community college districts and puts too much emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity—the gap between Hispanic students and faculty in particular. The Chancellor’s Office agreed to implement some of our recommendations but added that, to implement some of other our recommendations, it would need to revise existing regulations—a process it indicated involves many stakeholders and over which it does not have ultimate control in terms of timing and outcome. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 7 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Introduction Background California’s community colleges enroll about two million students, more than twice as many as the California State University and University of California systems combined. California’s 73 community college districts (districts) serve almost every part of the State. According to the Office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges (Chancellor’s Office), more than one-third of the State’s community college students report that they are the first in their family to attend college. Community colleges offer a variety of educational services, including access to apprenticeships and learning English as a second language, and about 60 percent of students have a The board’s responsibilities include the following: goal of earning a two-year or four-year • Evaluating districts’ fiscal procedures and setting college degree. standards in hiring. The 17-member California Community Colleges • Advising and assisting with districts’ compliance with state and federal laws. Board of Governors (board) provides leadership and direction to the districts by carrying out certain • Determining minimum standards for districts to receive responsibilities, including those described in the state funding. text box. The board appoints the Chancellor of the • Reviewing districts periodically to ensure that they meet California Community Colleges, who acts as the these minimum standards. systemwide chief executive officer. The board has • Allocating state funds to each district. granted the Chancellor’s Office specific oversight of aspects of the districts’ fiscal management, hiring, Source: State law. and budget-reporting practices. In practice, this means that the Chancellor’s Office oversees the daily operations of the system, while the board sets policy. Comparison of Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty Faculty instructors are hired on either a full-time or part-time basis. Generally, the labels full-time and part-time are not solely based on the hours spent teaching but rather on the terms of instructors’ contracts with the college. Part-time faculty members are classified as temporary employees and generally receive fewer employee benefits. Full-time faculty members are typically hired with the expectation that they will work to achieve tenure, which makes them permanent employees. Hiring part-time faculty allows colleges more flexibility to quickly meet changing educational demands in certain fields, but part-time faculty also face challenges that make it more difficult to provide the support their students need. Because colleges can hire part-time faculty faster and at less cost than they can hire full-time faculty, they frequently rely on part-time hiring to fill faculty positions in the short term. In 2021 the Chancellor’s Office estimated that the average cost for compensation and benefits of a full-time faculty member was about $131,000, whereas the average cost of a part-time faculty member who teaches a full load of 15 credits, but generally would not receive benefits, was about $45,000. 8 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Part-time faculty members have less support from the college than full-time faculty members and are given fewer responsibilities. For example, part-time faculty members typically are not required to hold office hours or to make themselves available to students outside of class time. Many part-time faculty members teach at multiple colleges during the same academic period and thus are less likely to be involved in the activities of a single campus. Figure 1 shows some of the challenges part-time faculty face that make it more difficult for them to adequately support students academically. Figure 1 Research Shows Part-Time Faculty Face Barriers to Meeting Students’ Needs, When Compared to Full-Time Faculty Members Part-time instructors are less likely to use high-impact Part-time instructors are less likely to have a designated educational practices—which are more likely to engage office space, making it more difficult to meet with students—such as referrals to tutoring services. students outside of class. Students who take an introductory course taught by a part-time instructor are less likely to sign up for a second course in the same field. Part-time instructors are less able to dedicate the same Part-time instructors may not know their instructional amount of time to advising students. assignments until shortly before the term begins, which may limit their time to prepare course materials. Student Club Sources: Center for Community College Student Engagement, Contingent Commitments: Bringing Part‑Time Faculty Into Focus, The University of Texas at Austin, Program in Higher Education Leadership, 2014. <https://www.ccsse.org/docs/ptf_special_ report.pdf>, accessed on August 8, 2022. Center for Community College Student Engagement, Making Connections: Dimensions of Student Engagement (2009 CCSSE Findings), The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program, 2009. <https://www.ccsse.org/ publications/national_report_2009/CCSSE09_nationalreport.pdf>, accessed on August 15, 2022. Florence Xiaotao Ran and Di Xu, How and Why Do Adjunct Instructors Affect Students’ Academic Outcomes? Evidence From Two‑Year and Four‑Year Colleges: A CAPSEE Working Paper, Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment, January 2017. <https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/how-and-why-do-adjunct-instructors-affect-students- academic-outcomes.pdf>, accessed on November 14, 2022. Ernst Benjamin, How Over‑Reliance on Contingent Appointments Diminishes Faculty Involvement in Student Learning, Peer Review online, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 2002. <https://www.nccft.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/How-Over-Reliance-on-Contingent- Appointments-Diminishes-Faculty-Involvement-in-Student-Learning-Association-of-American-Colleges-Universities.pdf>, accessed on August 8, 2022. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 9 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 In contrast, full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty members provide additional support to students beyond classroom instruction. Full-time faculty members typically hold office hours, giving them additional opportunities to interact with students. They also have the ability to participate in committees to improve the college’s quality of education, such as revising curriculum, and they may serve as advisers to student organizations. Research suggests that these types of supports are especially crucial to the success of California’s most disadvantaged populations, for whom community college is a major source of social and economic mobility.2 Full-Time Faculty Instruction In 1988 the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 1725, which recognized a goal that full-time faculty The full-time faculty calculation includes should teach at least 75 percent of all hours of the following: for-credit class instruction (instruction) in the California Community Colleges system. The board • Regular assignment: instructional and noninstructional activities of a full-time faculty member. then created regulations for the districts to use in calculating the percentage of instruction taught • Sabbatical: full-time faculty members on sabbatical. by full-time faculty; however, the regulations • Unpaid leave: full-time faculty members on unpaid leave never were a strict calculation of instruction. The as if the faculty member were working full-time. text box details elements of the full-time faculty calculation currently in regulations and shows some • Late retirement: full-time faculty members who resigned or retired within 45 days of the previous spring term instances in which noninstructional activities are and whose position has not been replaced by another included and some instances in which instruction full-time faculty member. is excluded from the calculation. For example, the calculation includes full-time faculty members who provide no instruction because they are on The full-time faculty calculation excludes sabbatical or unpaid leave, and it excludes the the following: workload of faculty replacing faculty on sabbatical or unpaid leave. • Overload: any full-time faculty overload assignment, which is an assignment in excess of the normal assignment of a full-time faculty member. The Chancellor’s Office believes that a focus solely on the instruction time in the classroom may • Replacement: the workload of replacement faculty, lead to layoffs of part-time faculty, significantly whether full- or part-time, who are replacing full-time higher costs, and poorer student outcomes, and faculty on sabbatical or unpaid leave, or those who had a that even the full-time faculty measure in the late retirement. regulations does not recognize that faculty provide • Parcel tax: full-time faculty members funded from educational support and contributions to student temporary local sources, such as special taxes imposed by success far beyond time in the classroom. These a community college district. contributions can include ongoing curriculum Source: State regulations. development, participation in academic work groups and committees, providing library services, and counseling and tutoring supports. 2 Ernst Benjamin, How Over‑Reliance on Contingent Appointments Diminishes Faculty Involvement in Student Learning, Peer Review online, Vol. 5, No. 1, Fall 2002. <https://www.nccft.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/How-Over-Reliance-on- Contingent-Appointments-Diminishes-Faculty-Involvement-in-Student-Learning-Association-of-American-Colleges- Universities.pdf>, accessed on August 8, 2022. 10 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 In addition, each year the Chancellor’s Office sets what is called the faculty obligation number (FON), which is the minimum number of full-time faculty members a district must maintain. According to state regulations, the Chancellor’s Office is responsible for calculating each district’s FON, reporting that information to the districts, and determining whether the districts have maintained or met the previous year’s minimum. The board’s regulations require the Chancellor’s Office to determine, each fiscal year, whether to increase the districts’ base FON if there is adequate funding to do so. In addition to the availability of funding, changes in enrollment affect the FON. Generally, when there is a decrease in a district’s hours of instruction, the Chancellor’s Office reduces that district’s FON. Over the past four fiscal years, community colleges have experienced a decline in enrollment, and state and local funding has remained relatively static. Funding from the state and local sources increased by 8 percent from fiscal years 2018–19 to 2021–22; however, average enrollment decreased by nearly 17 percent since the fall 2019 term, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Decreasing enrollment has resulted in a lower FON systemwide. As we discuss in Chapter 1, the FON is the principal mechanism the Chancellor’s Office uses to direct districts to increase their hiring of full-time faculty. We include data on full-time and part-time faculty hiring in Appendix B. Additional Funding to Hire Full-Time Faculty State lawmakers have provided community colleges additional resources for the purpose of hiring more full-time faculty. Beginning in fiscal year 2018–19, the Legislature appropriated an additional $50 million annually to the California Community Colleges for the hiring of full-time faculty, adding another $100 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2021–22, as shown in Figure 2.3 We focused on the use of these funds during this audit. The Chancellor’s Office allocated the funds to districts based on the number of students enrolled. The 2018 Budget Act stated that the funds were intended for districts to increase their percentage of instruction by full-time faculty so they could make progress toward the 75 percent goal. In the 2021 Budget Act, the Legislature similarly directed the additional $100 million to be used by the districts to hire new full-time faculty. In total, the Legislature has allocated $450 million since fiscal year 2018-19 to increase full-time faculty in California’s Community Colleges. 3 The Legislature provided a one-time appropriation of $62 million to the California Community Colleges in fiscal year 2015–16 for hiring full-time faculty, but these funds could also be used to support part-time faculty under certain conditions. Figure 2 California Community Colleges’ Funding Appropriations for Hiring Full-Time Faculty Total appropriation from fiscal years 2018–19 through 2022–23 $450,000,000 50 0 detairporppa yenom fo tnuomA )snoillim( CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 11 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 $150 100 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 2022–23 Fiscal Year Source: Budget acts for fiscal years 2018–19 through 2022–23. In 2021 the Chancellor’s Office told the Legislature that additional funding for full-time faculty could allow districts to convert part-time positions to full-time positions, but this statement does not align with districts’ hiring practices. Although community colleges may hire full-time faculty from the pool of part-time faculty who have taught at the college before, such hirings do not represent the conversion of teaching positions from part-time to full-time, and none of the districts we reviewed have a procedure for converting part-time positions to full-time positions. Student and Faculty Diversity In addition to the benefits of instruction by full-time faculty, community college students benefit from a diverse faculty. State law affirms that a workforce that is responsive to the needs of the State’s diverse population may be achieved by ensuring that all persons receive an equal opportunity to compete for employment and by eliminating barriers to equal employment opportunity (EEO). A diverse faculty has been shown to improve educational and professional outcomes for students, but these impacts are especially crucial for closing achievement gaps between the general student population and students from historically underrepresented groups.4 4 Robert W. Fairlie et. al., A Community College Instructor Like Me: Race and Ethnicity Interactions in the Classroom, American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 8, 2014, pp. 2567-91. 12 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Research shows that when students are taught by faculty members who share their identity and experiences, they are more likely to stay enrolled, pass classes, and complete a degree or transfer.5 State law requires districts to have EEO plans setting forth practices to provide all qualified individuals the opportunity to compete for hiring and promotion in the California Community Colleges workforce and requires all districts to have an EEO advisory committee. The Chancellor’s Office distributes certain funds to the districts specifically for use in implementing EEO practices in hiring and promotion, and state law requires districts to demonstrate that they have used the EEO funds properly. The Chancellor’s Office has identified nine EEO best practices for districts to follow, which it calls the multiple methods. For example, Method VI involves training hiring committees to avoid bias. The Chancellor’s Office divides the available EEO funding evenly among districts that can demonstrate compliance with at least seven of the nine methods. In fiscal year 2021–22, qualifying districts received $50,000 each. The Legislature approved an additional $10 million in EEO funding for fiscal year 2022–23, which amounts to about $140,000 per compliant district. Selection of California Community College Districts for Our Audit In June 2022, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed our office to determine how a selection of districts spent the additional funds for full-time hiring, how these districts’ faculty demographic data differed from those of the student population, and how these districts recruit and hire new faculty. For this audit, we examined Foothill-De Anza Community College District (Foothill-De Anza), Kern Community College District (Kern), Los Rios Community College District (Los Rios), and San Diego Community College District (San Diego). Figure 3 shows the location and size of these districts. We chose these districts based on size, location, demographic composition, and current percentage of full-time faculty staffing. 5 Petra Robinson et al., Enhancing Faculty Diversity at Community Colleges: A Practical Solution for Advancing the Completion Agenda, Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2013. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 13 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Figure 3 We Reviewed Districts of Varying Size and Location as Part of This Audit Los Rios Community College District Sacramento City College American River College Cosumnes River College Folsom Lake College Fall 2021 student population: 90,858 Kern Community College District Bakersfield College Cerro Coso College Porterville College Fall 2021 student population: 47,370 Foothill-De Anza Community College District Foothill College De Anza College Fall 2021 student population: 46,894 San Diego Community College District San Diego City College Mesa College Miramar College San Diego College of Continuing Education Fall 2021 student population: 58,325 Source: District websites and Chancellor’s Office data on student population for fall 2021. 14 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 15 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Chapter 1 THE CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE SHOULD DO MORE TO MONITOR DISTRICTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD ACHIEVING THE STATE’S FULL-TIME FACULTY GOAL Key Points • By the Chancellor’s Office’s own calculation, which is based on the number of full-time faculty, community colleges are not making progress toward the goal of full-time faculty providing at least 75 percent of instruction. • We calculated hours of instruction and found that districts may be even further away from the goal than the Chancellor’s Office’s metric suggests. • Some districts have not properly used the funds for hiring full-time faculty, and the Chancellor’s Office does not have a means to monitor districts’ use of the funds. Community Colleges Are Not Meeting the Goal for Instruction by Full-Time Faculty California’s community college districts have not made substantial progress toward the State’s goal of having at least 75 percent of the hours of instruction provided by full-time faculty. As noted in the Introduction, full-time faculty are more likely to spend more time with students on activities other than coursework and provide more support outside of the classroom than part-time faculty. This time and support has been shown to improve student success. Despite the Legislature’s recognition of the State’s goal more than 30 years ago to increase instruction by full-time faculty to at least 75 percent, districts have achieved it only rarely. The only metric the Chancellor’s Office uses to track districts’ progress toward the 75 percent goal is a calculation of the percentage of full-time-equivalent faculty (faculty calculation). As we discuss later, this metric is unsuitable for measuring credit instruction. Even so, this metric shows that only 18 districts have reached 75 percent using the faculty calculation since 1999, the first year for which the Chancellor’s Office provided data to us. Further, no district has remained at or above 75 percent for more than five years. In addition, districts overall have not shown substantial progress toward the goal over the last 20 years, as indicated in Figure 4. In 2003 the full-time faculty calculation systemwide was at 65 percent. By 2015 this percentage had declined to 55 percent. With the millions in additional state funding, community colleges increased the full-time faculty calculation percentage to nearly 60 percent in 2021, but this percentage is still below levels that predated the additional funding. This trend indicates that additional state funding to hire full-time staff may be helping but that the system needs to implement additional mechanisms beyond just funding to ensure that the percentage of instruction by full-time faculty within community colleges reaches the levels envisioned by state lawmakers more than 30 years ago. Figure 4 Districts Do Not Appear to Be Making Progress Toward the 75 Percent Goal 75% 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 2002 2003200420052006 200720082009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 egatnecreP ytlucaF emiT-lluF 16 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Systemwide Average Academic Year (Fall) Source: Analysis of Chancellor’s Office historical data. The Chancellor’s Office Uses Unsuitable Metrics to Monitor and Measure Full-Time and Part-Time Instruction The current mechanism the Chancellor’s Office uses to regulate full-time faculty staffing levels is not suited to monitor districts’ progress toward the State’s goal for 75 percent of instruction to be taught by full-time faculty. As determined by the Chancellor’s Office, the FON is the minimum amount of full-time faculty staffing a district must employ each year, and districts that do not meet the FON have their revenue reduced. However, as we discuss in the Introduction, adjustments to the FON are based on changes in funding and enrollment. As such, the overall FON has actually decreased slightly over the last 20 years. Districts are continually employing more full-time faculty than is mandated by the FON but are still not reaching the 75 percent goal. Although the Chancellor’s Office asserted that its use of the FON, alongside monitoring of the faculty calculation percentage, is sufficient to fulfill its responsibility to provide oversight of the districts’ progress toward the State’s 75 percent goal, the FON is not sufficient to guide districts toward the goal and does not accurately measure progress toward that goal. To create benchmarks to incrementally increase the percentage of instruction by full-time faculty, the Chancellor’s Office will need to develop an accurate way to measure it. Although the Chancellor’s Office believes its current faculty calculation is a valid way to measure progress toward the 75 percent goal, our analysis shows that it is not suited for that purpose. The current faculty calculation is generally based on the number of full-time faculty districts employ, not on the percentage of instruction taught by those faculty. For example, the faculty calculation includes noninstructional faculty—such as counselors and librarians—and noninstructional activities, such as developing curriculum. Furthermore, the calculation counts faculty members who are on certain types of leave, CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 17 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 but it does not count the instructional time of faculty who replace them. Table 1 shows some common examples of faculty at community colleges and compares how they are tabulated within the existing faculty calculation to our calculation that solely measures credit instruction. Because the faculty calculation includes noninstructional activities and noninstructional faculty members, it may overstate the percentage of credit instruction offered by full-time faculty. Table 1 The Chancellor’s Office’s Faculty Calculation Measures the Number of Full-Time Faculty at a District, While an Additional Metric Would Measure Instruction by Full-Time Faculty THE FACULTY CALCULATION OUR INSTRUCTION CURRENTLY IN USE CALCULATION TYPE OF FACULTY AND AMOUNT OF CREDIT HOURS FULL‑TIME PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME PART‑TIME Full-time faculty teaching 15 credit hours An assignment of 15 credit hours is assumed to be full-time for the 15 – 15 – purpose of demonstration.* Full-time faculty teaching 9 credit hours An assignment of 9 credit hours is assumed for the purpose of demonstration. The faculty calculation includes all credit-based 15 – 9 – instructional hours and noninstructional activities associated with full-time faculty assignments at a college. Full-time faculty not assigned to instruction The faculty calculation defines full-time faculty to include a 15 – – – variety of positions, including librarians, counselors, and health service professionals. Part-time faculty replacing full-time faculty on leave The faculty calculation counts full-time faculty members on unpaid 15 – – 15† leave, reassigned time, or sabbatical and excludes the workload of the replacement faculty member. Full-time faculty teaching 18 credit hours The faculty calculation excludes any credits taught by full-time faculty 15 – 18 – that are considered overload. Part-time faculty teaching 9 credit hours The faculty calculation includes the instructional and noninstructional – 9 – 9 activities of part-time faculty, with certain exceptions.‡ Source: State law, Legislative Analyst’s Office analysis, district union contracts, and data from selected districts. * The faculty calculation for full-time faculty is based in part on the instructional hours per week considered to be a full-time assignment for instructional employees within a district. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, districts generally require full-time faculty to teach 15 units or credit hours. † Full-time faculty on leave can be replaced by either part-time or full-time faculty members. If the replacement faculty member is full-time, our instruction calculation would classify that as full-time instruction. ‡ Exceptions include instances such as when part-time faculty are replacing full-time faculty on sabbatical, reassigned time, released time, or unpaid leave. For the four districts we reviewed, we calculated instruction taught by full-time faculty and determined the difference between this metric and the Chancellor’s Office’s faculty calculation. Our calculation of the percentage of instruction by full-time faculty identifies all for-credit classes at each selected district, the number of credit hours for each of those classes, and then determines the percentage of credit hours that were taught by full-time instructors. Our calculation does not include the noninstructional activities of any full-time faculty members who did not teach a credit class in the district, which includes the work of support faculty such as counselors and librarians. As indicated in Figure 5, the differences between our instruction calculation and the community colleges’ faculty calculation were large in two instances and small in two others. For instance, Kern’s percentage of instruction by full-time faculty was 56 percent using our methodology, 9 percentage points lower than its 65 percent faculty calculation would indicate. The faculty calculation percentages for Foothill-De Anza and San Diego, on the other hand, were very similar to our calculations of the percentage of instruction by full-time faculty in those districts. This sort of unpredictable variation further demonstrates why, despite the claims of the Chancellor’s Office, the faculty calculation is not an accurate metric of whether districts are meeting or progressing toward the State’s goal that full-time faculty should provide at least 75 percent of all hours of credit instruction. Although the faculty calculation is useful for implementing the FON, it does not represent the percentage of credit instruction. By adopting an accurate metric and creating benchmarks for full-time faculty instruction levels, the Chancellor’s Office could better monitor and drive progress toward the State’s goal. Figure 5 Data From Fiscal Year 2021–22 Show That the Chancellor’s Office’s Faculty Calculation Is Not an Accurate Measure of Instruction 75% The goal of 75 percent of instruction by full-time faculty 70% 65% LEGEND 63% Our calculation of full-time faculty instruction The Chancellor's Office's faculty calculation 56% 52% 52% 50% 50% 49% egatnecreP 18 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Los Rios Kern Foothill-De Anza San Diego Source: Data from selected districts and the Chancellor’s Office. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 19 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Some Districts Did Not Properly Use the Funds the Legislature Allocated for Hiring Full-Time Faculty The districts we reviewed asserted that they would need additional funding to reach or remain at the 75 percent goal. However, the districts did not always spend the funds designated for hiring full-time faculty as required by law nor have they consistently used the funds to fill as many full-time faculty positions as possible. As we describe in the Introduction, since fiscal year 2018–19, the Legislature has provided designated funds for hiring new, full-time faculty members. Table 2 shows the amounts allocated in each fiscal year to the four districts we reviewed. Two of the districts we reviewed did not always use the funds properly. Further, the remaining two districts’ methods for spending and tracking the funds did not provide adequate assurance that they had used the funds as intended. Table 2 Over the Past Five Fiscal Years, the Four Districts We Reviewed Received Allocations of Funds to Hire Full-Time Faculty FISCAL YEAR DISTRICT 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22 2022–23 FOOTHILL-DE ANZA First allocation $1,087,522 $1,087,522 $1,087,522 $1,087,522 $1,087,522 Second allocation – – – 2,634,773 2,634,773 Total $1,087,522 $1,087,522 $1,087,522 $3,722,295 $3,722,295 KERN First allocation 1,001,192 1,001,192 1,001,192 1,001,192 1,001,192 Second allocation – – – 2,487,651 2,487,651 Total $1,001,192 $1,001,192 $1,001,192 $3,488,843 $3,488,843 LOS RIOS First allocation 1,968,305 1,968,305 1,968,305 1,968,305 1,968,305 Second allocation – – – 5,017,282 5,017,282 Total $1,968,305 $1,968,305 $1,968,305 $6,985,587 $6,985,587 SAN DIEGO First allocation 1,922,450 1,922,450 1,922,450 1,922,450 1,922,450 Second allocation – – – 3,025,628 3,025,628 Total $1,922,450 $1,922,450 $1,922,450 $4,948,078 $4,948,078 Source: Districts’ monthly payment schedules for fiscal years 2018–19 through 2022–23. In the first year of each appropriation, fiscal years 2018–19 and 2021–22, respectively, Foothill-De Anza inappropriately spent some of the funds on part-time faculty costs. In fiscal year 2018–19, it spent at least $378,000 of its $1.1 million on part-time faculty. In fiscal year 2021–22, it spent $2.6 million, representing its entire portion of the additional funds that the Legislature appropriated beginning in that fiscal year, on part-time faculty expenses. Foothill-De Anza explained that it did so because using the funds to hire full-time faculty in the first year of the respective allocations 20 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 would have been problematic because it can take up to a year to hire full-time faculty. The district believed that the Chancellor’s Office had given guidance that the funds should be used for other instructional costs if a district was unable to hire new full-time faculty in the first year. Further, the district stated that it used the funding in good faith for instructional purposes until it could hire full-time faculty. However, expending the funds on part-time faculty was improper. The budget act required districts to use the funds to hire new full-time faculty. In addition, we reviewed the guidance issued by the Chancellor’s Office in fiscal memos in 2018 and 2021, and in both instances the guidance was clear that districts were expected to use the funds to hire new full-time faculty. Although Foothill-De Anza improperly spent the funds on part-time faculty costs in the first year of each allocation, it has subsequently used the funds for their intended purpose. In fiscal year 2019–20, Foothill-De Anza used the funds to fill 12 full-time faculty positions, and it later filled an additional two positions. As of September 2022, it had filled 15 of 22 new budgeted positions that will begin incurring costs in fiscal year 2022–23. However, the fact that the district initially used the funds improperly raises the possibility that other districts may have done so as well. Another district we reviewed, San Diego, left funds unspent that it could have used to hire more full-time faculty. As Figure 6 shows, San Diego created 13 new full-time faculty positions with the fiscal year 2018–19 allocation. However, the costs for these positions have never exceeded 65 percent of the $1.9 million allocation it received each year. Consequently, about $4 million in unspent funds have accumulated over the past four fiscal years. San Diego did not notice the large percentage of unused funds until we conducted our audit. San Diego stated that, due to inadequate tracking of the positions by its human resources division, it neglected to reassess whether it could have funded more positions. It now plans to create and fill an additional four positions with those funds. San Diego has already created 25 new positions with the additional $3 million allocation it began receiving in fiscal year 2021–22. Nevertheless, San Diego will need to ensure that it monitors the positions and their actual costs to avoid having unused funds that should have been used to create and [Insert Figure 6] fill more positions. Unlike San Diego and Foothill-De Anza, neither Kern nor Los Rios can demonstrate that the funds were used to create new full-time faculty positions. Both districts asserted that they sufficiently demonstrated that they used the funding to hire full-time faculty by showing that the costs of all full-time faculty hired over the past four fiscal years exceeded the allocations they had received. However, because the funds go into each district’s unrestricted general fund, and neither district tracks the use of these funds separately, Kern and Los Rios could not prove that they had been used to create new full-time faculty positions. Requiring districts to report on how they used the funds would allow the Chancellor’s Office to monitor districts and would give the Legislature assurance that the districts were fully and appropriately using the funds to hire full-time faculty. We reviewed only four districts for our audit; however, the lack of accountability means the Chancellor’s Office cannot know whether the remaining districts also left funds unspent or used funds inappropriately. For districts like San Diego, which CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 21 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 experienced problems in tracking the use of the funds and left funds unspent, an annual reporting mechanism would require the districts to stay apprised of the funds’ status. Further, requiring the districts to report on how many positions they have created and are maintaining with the funds would give the Chancellor’s Office additional assurance that districts such as Kern and Los Rios, which do not tie the funds to specific positions, have indeed used the funds to increase the percentage Figure 6 San Diego Has Not Maximized Its Use of the First Funding Allocation That Began in Fiscal Year 2018–19 FISCAL YEAR 2018–19 2019–20 2020–21 2021–22* $1,922,450 $1,922,450 $1,922,450 $1,922,450 received received received received POSITIONS CREATED/FILLED/VACANT 13 positions created 12 positions filled; 12 positions filled; 10 positions filled; 1 vacant 1 vacant 3 vacant PERCENTAGE SPENT EACH YEAR 0% 59% 64% 61% RUNNING TOTAL OF UNSPENT FUNDS $1,922,450 $2,708,662 $3,394,592 $4,146,222 Source: Analysis of San Diego financial documents, board of trustees agendas, and community college district apportionment reports. * The analysis presented here concerns only San Diego’s use of the allocation that began in fiscal year 2018–19, and thus we do not include the separate allocation that began in fiscal year 2021–22. 22 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 of instruction by full-time faculty. The Chancellor’s Office agreed that required reporting would provide greater transparency and allow it to monitor whether districts are leaving funds unspent or potentially misusing funds. Please refer to the section beginning on page 5 to find the recommendations that we have made as a result of these audit findings. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 23 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Chapter 2 INCREASED OVERSIGHT AND GUIDANCE COULD IMPROVE DISTRICTS’ ABILITY TO HIRE FACULTY WHO REFLECT THE DIVERSITY OF THEIR STUDENTS Key Points • Community colleges struggle to recruit diverse faculty, especially representing the Hispanic community, asserting challenges with workforce availability. • Despite the potential effectiveness of its nine methods for improving diversity, the Chancellor’s Office has required districts to implement only seven of these methods and does not verify whether districts have implemented the methods they claim to be using. • The Chancellor’s Office has identified a number of other best practices for increasing diversity, but districts have not implemented them. Faculty at California Community Colleges Do Not Sufficiently Reflect the Diversity of Their Students As we discuss in the Introduction, studies cited by the Chancellor’s Office show that students, especially those from historically underrepresented groups, who are served by a racially and ethnically diverse faculty are better educated and better prepared to be competitive in the professional workforce. Nevertheless, community colleges struggle to close demographic gaps between students and faculty. For example, as indicated in Table 3, 47 percent of community college students in California identify as Hispanic, but roughly 18 percent of faculty identify as Hispanic. Table 3 Systemwide Differences Between Faculty and Student Demographics Highlight the Representation Gap for Hispanic Students at California Community Colleges STUDENT PERCENTAGE FACULTY PERCENTAGE* GAP Hispanic 47.0% 17.7% 29.2% Multi-Ethnicity 4.1 1.5 2.6 Asian 13.6 11.0 2.6 Pacific Islander 0.4 0.5 -0.1 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3 0.6 -0.3 African-American 5.4 5.9 -0.5 Unknown 4.9 7.0 -2.1 White Non-Hispanic 24.3 55.8 -31.5 Source: The Chancellor’s Office’s Data Mart, 2021 academic year. Note: Some percentages do not add up to 100 due to rounding. * Includes noninstructional faculty, such as librarians and counselors. Although the community colleges have made progress in hiring more Hispanic faculty, that progress is not enough to create a faculty representative of the student body. As we show in Figure 7, over the past 20 years, the gap between the percentage of faculty who identify as Hispanic and the percentage of students who identify as Hispanic has remained significant. This gap is not because the colleges are not hiring Hispanic faculty. In fact, the community colleges have nearly doubled the percentage of faculty identifying as Hispanic over the past 20 years. However, the percentage of students identifying as Hispanic has increased more than the percentage of Hispanic faculty over that time. Although demographic differences between students and faculty are not necessarily evidence of improper hiring activity or discrimination, they highlight that districts have further to go in hiring faculty that represent their students. Figure 7 California Community Colleges Have a Significant Gap Between the Percentage of Faculty and the Percentage of Students Who Identify as Hispanic 50% Percentage of students who 45 identify as Hispanic 40 Hispanic student enrollment increased by 35 20 percentage points 30 25 20 Percentage of faculty who 15 identify as Hispanic* 10 Hispanic faculty hired increased by 5 8 percentage points 0 2002 2003200420052006200720082009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 egatnecreP 24 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Academic Year Source: The Chancellor’s Office’s Data Mart. * Includes noninstructional faculty, such as librarians and counselors. Three of the districts we reviewed are not meeting a requirement that would enable them to address potential sources of underrepresentation in their workforce, and the Chancellor’s Office has not held districts accountable for not meeting this requirement. Under state law, districts must determine whether underrepresentation resulting from factors that are not job-related exist in their employment processes, including recruitment, application, hiring, retention, and promotion, and they must implement strategies to address these factors. Current and previous state law further directs districts to review the composition of their initial pool of applicants compared to the pool of applicants who are considered qualified for the position. Of the four districts we examined, only Los Rios was able to provide documentation showing that they performed this analysis. The other three districts stated that due to logistical challenges—a changeover in data systems at Kern, ongoing staff shortages in human resources at Foothill-De Anza, and COVID-related disruptions CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 25 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 at San Diego—they had not been able to conduct this analysis during our audit period. According to the general counsel at the Chancellor’s Office, the office did not hold districts accountable for not conducting this analysis due to a lack of resources within the Chancellor’s Office. The Chancellor’s Office has previously stated that eliminating potential barriers to recruitment and hiring can ensure that a broader range of individuals have a fair chance at employment, and that data analysis is an important tool for districts to identify those barriers. The Chancellor’s Office says it is dedicating additional resources toward verifying that districts are conducting this required analysis. Holding the districts accountable for completing this analysis can help them make sure they are addressing potential underrepresentation throughout the employment process, and it would give them additional support for hiring a diverse faculty. All four districts we reviewed identified a lack of potential qualified applicants, or workforce availability, as a significant barrier to recruiting a diverse faculty. A vice-chancellor at Los Rios, for example, said that a primary challenge to hiring diverse faculty is generational differences in educational attainment; that is, there are larger numbers of Hispanic students currently pursuing higher education than Hispanic people who have already achieved the education needed to teach at a community college. Census data shows that educational attainment varies significantly among different racial and ethnic groups statewide. A faculty position at a California community college generally requires a master’s degree in the area of instruction; thus, the workforce from which community colleges can currently hire faculty may have significant disparities in educational attainment among certain racial and ethnic groups in certain geographic areas. For example, in Kern County the percentage of the Hispanic population with a bachelor’s degree is just over half the percentage of the Hispanic population with a bachelor’s degree statewide. Foothill-De Anza is in Santa Clara County, where educational attainment is relatively high, but the district asserted that the region’s high cost of living, competitive labor market, and high-paying jobs in nearby private industry pose significant recruitment challenges. Although each region faces its own unique challenges, all districts we reviewed said they struggle with a lack of workforce availability. In addition to workforce availability challenges, the districts cited various other barriers to the development of a faculty that represents their student body, including slow faculty turnover and differences between full-time and part-time hiring processes. Students at community colleges closely reflect the diversity of the State as it exists today, but, according to a vice-chancellor at San Diego, the composition of today’s faculty workforce reflects hiring decisions made two or three decades ago. He stated that tenured faculty turnover is often low, sometimes less than 10 percent per year, meaning that it will take time for the demographics of tenured faculty to change. Additionally, full-time and part-time faculty are subject to different hiring processes, which may lead to differences in representation between the two groups. According to the same San Diego vice-chancellor, time pressure when hiring part-time faculty leads colleges to hire people with whom they are already familiar, which tends to reinforce existing demographics. Because districts often draw from their part-time faculty when hiring full-time faculty, practices that increase diversity among part-time hires in the short term can encourage diversity among applicants 26 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 for full-time positions in the long term. While the challenges outlined above would slow the development of a faculty representative of a student body, a greater focus on practices to improve faculty diversity, as we discuss in the next section, would help districts overcome these obstacles. The Chancellor’s Office Has Not Ensured That Districts Employ Best Practices for Promoting Faculty Diversity The Chancellor’s Office does not provide sufficient oversight to ensure that districts adequately implement nine methods, which it calls multiple methods, to promote faculty diversity. The Legislature has stated that academic excellence can best be sustained in a climate of acceptance that is prepared to provide service to an increasingly diverse student population, and that a workforce that is continually responsive to the needs of a diverse student population may be achieved in part by eliminating barriers to EEO. According to a 2020 Chancellor’s Office report, workforce diversity affects student and employee retention, reduces the likelihood of implicit bias, and increases the faculty’s ability to teach in a multiculturally effective way. Further, diversity is a driver for increasing student achievement. To promote faculty EEO and therefore faculty diversity, the Chancellor’s Office established a process for allocating EEO funds to districts by requiring the districts to implement the multiple methods. As we indicate in Table 4, each method includes at least one element a district can implement to demonstrate its compliance with that method. Although the Chancellor’s Office’s deputy counsel asserted that these methods can significantly assist a district’s diversity efforts, the Chancellor’s Office currently [Insert Table 4] requires implementation of only seven of the nine methods. These methods provide benefits to districts in improving faculty diversity. For example, a best practice that districts may use to satisfy Method IX is maintaining various programs to support newly hired employees, such as professional development. To satisfy Method IX, Los Rios runs an internship program that provides learning opportunities for faculty interns from diverse backgrounds. According to the Chancellor’s Office 2022 EEO handbook, the internship program is designed to recruit qualified faculty who mirror the racial and ethnic diversity of the district’s service area. Los Rios provided program information indicating that over 33 percent of the selected interns in fiscal year 2019–20 identified as Hispanic—a population underrepresented among the community colleges’ faculty when compared to the demographics of the community colleges’ student population. Of the 936 interns who have completed the program in the past 22 years, the district hired approximately 29 percent as part-time faculty and 14 percent as tenure-track faculty. Although these results may appear modest, the internship program offers a potential pipeline to attract, train, and hire faculty from diverse backgrounds. In contrast, Foothill-De Anza is not required to and chose not to implement Method IX, and neither of the district’s colleges offer an internship program applicable to Method IX. As a result this district and potentially others like it are missing opportunities to utilize programs that are optional but that, according to the Chancellor’s Office 2022 EEO handbook, have proven to be effective at increasing diversity among faculty. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 27 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Table 4 The Chancellor’s Office Requires Each District to Comply With Method I and Any Six of the Remaining Eight Methods to Qualify for EEO Funding SUMMARY OF BEST PRACTICES DISTRICTS CAN METHOD # MULTIPLE METHODS IMPLEMENT UNDER EACH METHOD I Submission of EEO plan Submit an EEO plan to the Chancellor’s Office. EEO advisory committee Establish a committee to develop and Mandatory to implement its EEO plan. qualify for EEO funding Submission of reports Submit an EEO funds expenditure report to the Chancellor’s Office. Each district must certify that it meets at least six of the remaining eight methods to qualify for EEO funding II Board policies and adopted resolutions Ensure that its board of trustees receives training on the elimination of bias in hiring. Ensure that its mission statement conveys a commitment to diversity. Maintain curricula to expand the global perspective. Address issues of inclusion. III Incentives for hard-to-hire areas Conduct analysis of district hiring, retention, and promotion data over a period of years. IV Focused outreach and publication Conduct campus climate surveys and use the survey information. Provide cultural awareness training. Maintain updated job descriptions. Ensure that its publications and website convey diversity. Ensure that its mission statement conveys a commitment to diversity. V Procedures for addressing diversity Conduct exit interviews, analyze interview data for patterns, and throughout hiring steps use this information. Promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints. Require applicants to demonstrate understanding of the diverse student background. Attempt to gather and use information from applicants who decline job offers. VI Training for hiring committees Provide training on elimination of bias in hiring. Promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints. VII Professional development focused Maintain a variety of programs, such as mentoring, to support on diversity newly hired employees. Promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints. Have staff members serve as resources for other districts. VIII Diversity incorporated into criteria for Conduct exit interviews, analyze interview data for patterns, and employee evaluation and tenure review use this information. Conduct analysis of district hiring, retention, and promotion data over a period of years. IX Grow-your-own programs Maintain a variety of programs, such as mentoring, to support newly hired employees. Source: The Chancellor’s Office website. According to the Chancellor’s Office’s then-deputy counsel, the Chancellor’s Office did not initially require compliance with all nine methods because of differences in administration sizes, resources, and EEO knowledge among the districts. The 28 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Chancellor’s Office’s goal was to gradually increase the compliance requirements over time. An executive at the Chancellor’s Office asserted that districts now have more resources and time to implement these best practices than they did in 2015 and that all nine methods are now realistic expectations for the districts. Until the Chancellor’s Office requires districts to implement all of the multiple methods, the districts may be missing opportunities to promote equal opportunity in its hiring of faculty. The Chancellor’s Office has awarded EEO funds to districts without verifying whether they adequately complied with the multiple methods requirements. Currently, the Chancellor’s Office awards EEO funding to districts on the condition that they submit an annual certification form declaring that they have implemented seven of the multiple methods. However, according to its deputy counsel, the Chancellor’s Office does not verify whether or to what extent the districts carried out the methods they claimed to have implemented. For fiscal year 2022–23, the Legislature greatly increased the EEO funds appropriation by an additional $10 million, bringing the total EEO funding award to $12.8 million. However, without verifying that the districts receiving this money have fully implemented the methods they list on their certification forms, the Chancellor’s Office cannot ensure that the districts are making the progress necessary to promote diversity. This lack of oversight allowed districts to do less than they should to promote faculty diversity. We reviewed the explanations each of our selected districts submitted with their certification form describing the methods they implemented and how they did so. In doing so, we identified seven instances at the four districts where support for a method appeared inadequate. In each case, the district confirmed that it had not implemented that method in accordance with the Chancellor’s Office’s multiple methods guidance, with Foothill-De Anza attributing this to the Chancellor’s Office’s lack of guidance for the implementation of the multiple methods. For example, Method VIII is intended to incorporate diversity into employee evaluations and tenure reviews, and it recommends in part that districts either conduct analyses of various employment events, such as hiring and promotion, or review exit interview data over time. According to the Chancellor’s Office, analyses of such employment data may help districts to identify when non-job-related factors result in a significant underrepresentation of certain ethnic groups. The Chancellor’s Office created the Vision for Success Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Task Force (equity task force) in part to focus on addressing faculty diversity. The equity task force has asserted that analyses of robust exit interviews allow districts to address specific concerns regarding workplace culture. San Diego does not conduct districtwide exit interviews but certified that it complied with Method VIII in fiscal year 2021–22 through its employment data analysis. However, since its analysis did not include employee evaluation and tenure review data, its vice-chancellor confirmed that the district could not determine whether members of any specific group suffered disproportionate adversity once they were hired. The district agreed that it did not meet the intent of the method. It stated that including such data in its analysis would be valuable and that it will do so and establish an exit interview process in the future. Given the problems we identified with implementation of the CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 29 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 multiple methods and the lack of Chancellor’s Office review, there is heightened risk that other districts are receiving EEO funds and not implementing programs intended to improve diversity. The lack of additional EEO oversight from the Chancellor’s Office has even greater significance due to the recent increase in EEO funding. According to its deputy counsel, the Chancellor’s Office has not come up with practical ways to verify districts’ compliance with the multiple methods due to its lack of resources and positions to dedicate to this time-intensive work. However, state law designated a portion of the EEO funds to be set aside to provide monitoring, among other administrative functions. Under its authority to monitor the use of the EEO funds, the Chancellor’s Office is responsible for ensuring that only districts that adequately comply with the multiple methods requirements receive the funds. In addition, an amendment to the state regulation that became effective in October 2022 gives the Chancellor’s Office a 90-day period to review and comment on each district’s EEO plan. Given this new review period, its deputy counsel explained that the Chancellor’s Office can potentially provide oversight by verifying the initial implementation of a selection of methods upon the submission of a district’s EEO plan. The Chancellor’s Office stated that it plans to monitor districts’ documentation of their progress in implementing the multiple methods through the districts’ annual certifications as well. The Chancellor’s Office Has Not Been Effective at Encouraging Districts to Implement Additional Best Practices for Improving Diversity The Chancellor’s Office recognizes that districts need to adopt additional practices that can improve faculty diversity and has communicated such practices to the districts, but the districts have not always implemented them. For example, in its 2022 EEO handbook, the Chancellor’s Office states that a diverse hiring committee with various perspectives and differences in thoughts will yield a better outcome and indicate commitment to diversity in hiring. The Chancellor’s Office had made a similar recommendation in its 2016 EEO handbook. Additionally, in September 2019 and November 2020, the equity task force that was discussed in the previous section recommended best practices districts could take to diversify their hiring committees. However, only two of the four districts we reviewed, Los Rios and Foothill-De Anza, have districtwide policies to diversify their colleges’ hiring committees. Kern and San Diego do not yet have such policies; however, San Diego’s vice-chancellor for human resources stated that the district is working on adopting a policy already developed by one of its colleges. The equity task force has asserted that when screening and interview committees lack diverse perspectives, the committees are less likely to prioritize the ability to serve diverse communities as a core requirement for successful job performance; when applicants do not see their characteristics represented by current employees during the selection process, they may perceive the institution as not being inclusive and not valuing their cultural background. Thus, adopting a practice of having diverse hiring committees could help districts attract a pool of applicants that is more qualified to serve a diverse student body. 30 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 As part of this audit, we identified additional best practices for increasing diversity in hiring. Table 5 lists those practices and the extent to which the four districts we reviewed have adopted them. In general, the Chancellor’s Office has communicated information on these practices to the districts, but the districts have not always implemented them. For example, only two districts involve affinity groups in the hiring process, and none have attempted a concept called cluster hiring. Affinity groups are groups typically constructed around similarities that employees share, which can include race or ethnicity. Both Los Rios and Foothill De-Anza have reached out to Latinx affinity groups to share information on recruitment. In contrast, neither Kern nor San Diego currently has race- or ethnicity-focused affinity groups. Kern’s vice-chancellor for human resources noted that the district does have a districtwide EEO group focused on increasing diversity in recruitment, and San Diego’s vice-chancellor for human resources stated that the district is working on establishing affinity groups. Table 5 We Identified Some Potentially Effective Best Practices for Increasing Districts’ Ability to Hire Diverse Faculty That Some Districts Have Not Yet Adopted DISTRICT PROMOTED BY THE CHANCELLOR’S SAN FOOTHILL‑ POTENTIAL BEST PRACTICE OFFICE LOS RIOS DIEGO KERN DE ANZA PRE-HIRING Use internship programs to recruit a diverse group of prospective Yes ü ü ü X community college educators Involve affinity groups in the Yes ü X X ü recruitment process Demonstrate an established commitment to working with underrepresented Yes ü X ü ü minority groups as minimum application requirement HIRING Establish policies to ensure diversity in the composition of Yes ü X X ü hiring committees Conduct a cluster hire using criteria designed to assess the Yes X X X X candidate’s ability to serve underrepresented populations Require an EEO compliance officer to participate in the part-time No ü ü X X faculty hiring process and not just the full-time hiring process ü Adopted X Not yet adopted Source: Analysis of diversity hiring best practices from various sources, and interviews with the four districts. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 31 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 In addition, although cluster hiring has proven to be an effective hiring practice at various universities, none of the districts we reviewed have used this best practice to build a more diverse faculty. According to the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, cluster hiring is an approach to aggressively onboard diverse candidates by intentionally using strategies to promote the hiring of underrepresented faculty instructors as a group. For instance, in a 2021 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education,6 the chief diversity officer at San Diego State University noted that the university increased the number of tenured and tenure-track Black faculty by 68 percent in four years, in part due to its use of cluster hiring of faculty with a demonstrated record of success in research, teaching, or service focused on Black populations. In a 2019 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a senior associate dean of faculty at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, described how cluster hiring helped that university substantially increase the number of new faculty from underrepresented groups. San Diego asserts that it is working to incorporate cluster hiring into its hiring processes, and Los Rios acknowledged the benefit of such a practice but suggested that other practices to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion could be just as or more effective. Kern, Foothill-De Anza, and Los Rios also brought up concerns about resource limitations and potential legal challenges. Resource limitations may be valid, as smaller districts or those that do not need to hire large numbers of faculty may not benefit from cluster hiring. However, legal challenges may not be a barrier. In its 2022 EEO handbook, the Chancellor’s Office states that, although there are legal limitations on hiring based on race, it is permissible to explicitly state preferred qualifications in hiring for programs that serve historically underrepresented and disproportionately impacted students. According to its general counsel, the Chancellor’s Office believes that regularly vetting best practices is important, and it hopes to update its EEO handbook with new best practices every three years. Its deputy counsel also asserted that the Chancellor’s Office will publish a new EEO plan template that incorporates the multiple methods for districts to use beginning April 2023. Each district must review and submit to the Chancellor’s Office a new or revised EEO plan every three years, as well as certify annually to the Chancellor’s Office that it has reviewed and updated, as needed, its EEO Plan relating to the multiple methods. Regularly updating the EEO handbook will enable the Chancellor’s Office to communicate best practices more frequently; however, incorporating additional best practices into the list those districts may use to address each of the multiple methods will further encourage districts to consider those practices. That, along with better monitoring of districts’ implementation of the methods, will help the Chancellor’s Office and the districts provide community college students with the educational benefits of a diverse faculty and, thus, improve student outcomes. Please refer to the section beginning on page 5 to find the recommendations that we have made as a result of these audit findings. 6 J. Luke Wood, 5 Ways to Make a Real Improvement in Hiring Black Professors, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 7, 2021. <https://www.chronicle.com/article/5-ways-to-make-a-real-improvement-in-hiring-black- professors?cid=gen_sign_in>, accessed on November 2, 2022. 32 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code sections 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Respectfully submitted, GRANT PARKS California State Auditor February 23, 2023 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 33 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Appendix A PERCENTAGES OF STUDENTS AND INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY BY ETHNICITY AND GENDER AT SELECTED DISTRICTS, FISCAL YEAR 2021–22 The scope and objectives of this audit requested specific statistics related to student and instructor demographics for the districts we reviewed. We present this information in the following tables. Table A1 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Kern Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL ETHNICITY STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY American Indian or Alaska Native <1% 1% <1% 1% Asian 4 4 4 4 Black or African American 4 5 4 5 Hispanic or Latino 65 25 21 23 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander <1 0 0 0 White 21 57 64 60 Two or more races 3 2 3 2 Unknown 1 6 3 5 Source: Data from Kern Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Table A2 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Foothill-De Anza Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL ETHNICITY STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1% <1% <1% Asian 38 22 19 21 Black or African American 3 3 6 4 Hispanic or Latino 26 8 17 11 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander <1 <1 0 <1 White 23 61 52 58 Two or more races 6 2 3 2 Unknown 3 4 2 4 Source: Data from Foothill-De Anza Community College District Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 34 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Table A3 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Los Rios Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL ETHNICITY STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1% 1% <1% Asian 19 11 10 11 Black or African American 9 6 7 6 Hispanic or Latino 26 10 12 11 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 1 <1 <1 <1 White 33 62 60 61 Two or more races 7 5 4 5 Unknown 4 6 4 5 Source: Data from Los Rios Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Table A4 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Ethnicity, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for San Diego Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL ETHNICITY STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY American Indian or Alaska Native <1% <1% <1% <1% Asian 14 10 10 10 Black or African American 7 6 7 6 Hispanic or Latino 37 15 17 15 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander <1 0 <1 <1 White 32 61 56 59 Two or more races 7 2 3 2 Unknown 3 6 8 6 Source: Data from San Diego Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 35 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Table A5 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Gender, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Kern Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL GENDER STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY Female 55% 51% 49% 50% Male 44 49 51 50 Unknown 1 0 0 0 Source: Data from Kern Community College District. Table A6 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Gender, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Foothill-De Anza Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL GENDER STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY Female 50% 53% 54% 53% Male 49 47 46 47 Unknown 2 <1 0 <1 Source: Data from Foothill-De Anza Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Table A7 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Gender, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for Los Rios Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL GENDER STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY Female 58% 54% 54% 54% Male 40 46 46 46 Non-Binary <1 <1 0 <1 Unknown 2 <1 <1 <1 Source: Data from Los Rios Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 36 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Table A8 Percentages of Students and Instructional Faculty by Gender, Fiscal Year 2021–22, for San Diego Community College District PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME ALL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL INSTRUCTIONAL GENDER STUDENTS FACULTY FACULTY FACULTY Female 52% 50% 53% 51% Male 48 50 47 49 Non-Binary <1 0 0 0 Unknown <1 0 0 0 Source: Data from San Diego Community College District. Note: Amounts may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 37 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Appendix B INSTRUCTIONAL FACULTY HIRING AND HEAD COUNT DATA FOR SELECTED DISTRICTS, FISCAL YEARS 2018–19 THROUGH 2021–22 The scope and objectives of this audit requested specific statistics related to instructor hiring. We present this information in the following table. Table B FULL‑TIME PART‑TIME FULL‑TIME PART‑TIME FISCAL YEAR HIRED* HIRED* HEAD COUNT HEAD COUNT FOOTHILL‑DE ANZA 2018–19 10 62 449 925 2019–20 9 107 429 931 2020–21 27 96 419 878 2021–22 12 54 422 838 Net change over 4 fiscal years -6.0% -9.4% KERN 2018–19 17 180 419 838 2019–20 35 171 429 754 2020–21 11 107 451 950 2021–22 17 91 428 876 Net change over 4 fiscal years 2.1% 4.5% LOS RIOS 2018–19 41 229 922 1,543 2019–20 69 187 931 1,503 2020–21 7 55 869 1,193 2021–22 15 98 839 1,284 Net change over 4 fiscal years -9.0% -16.8% SAN DIEGO† 2018–19 2019–20 24 165 522 1,452 2020–21 1 61 475 1,223 2021–22 7 72 453 1,208 Net change over 3 fiscal years -13.2% -16.8% Source: Data from selected community college districts. * Hires can include individuals who were internal candidates moving from one time base to another. † San Diego’s current system does not contain complete data for fiscal year 2018–19, so we did not include numbers for that year. 38 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 39 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Appendix C Scope and Methodology The Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to conduct an audit of the California Community Colleges and a selection of community college districts to determine whether the districts appropriately spent recent state budget funds allocated for hiring full-time faculty. Specifically, we were directed to evaluate whether the selected districts used the funds in accordance with legislative intent to increase the percentage of full-time instruction, to determine the extent to which the faculty represents the diversity of the student population, and to identify barriers that may inhibit the hiring of diverse full-time and part-time faculty. Table C lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them. Table C Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and Reviewed relevant state laws, rules, and regulations applicable to the funds provided regulations significant to the audit objectives. for hiring full-time faculty, districts’ hiring practices, and the Chancellor’s Office’s oversight responsibilities. 2 For a selection of districts of varying size, • Reviewed information on the amount of funding each district received location, student composition, and other to hire full-time faculty in fiscal years 2018–19 through 2021–22, the relevant factors, determine the following: geographical location of districts, the student population of districts, and the a. The percentage of community college demographic diversity of students and faculty. Using this information, selected instruction taught by full-time and Foothill-De Anza, Kern, Los Rios, and San Diego for further review. part-time faculty. • Reviewed current metrics measuring the percentage of full-time faculty at each b. The number of full-time and part-time district and determined that these metrics were inappropriate for our purposes. instructors the districts hired during fiscal • Obtained data on instruction by both full-time and part-time faculty from the year 2021–22 and the net increase in four districts and determined whether it was taught by full-time or part-time full-time instructors. faculty. Calculated the percentage of instruction taught for credit by full-time c. The number of part-time faculty positions faculty. The data these districts provided did not include separate values for sex converted to full-time positions during this and gender. We therefore present an analysis of gender only in Appendix A. time period. • Obtained data from the four districts, calculated statistics on instructors hired, and calculated the net change in full-time and part-time instructors. • Interviewed human resources staff at the four districts and the Chancellor’s Office and determined that districts do not use a conversion process for creating new full-time faculty positions. continued on next page … 40 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 3 Assess how each of the selected districts has • Reviewed fiscal documents at the districts and determined that some districts spent state funding allocated for the hiring of would likely not have been able to spend funds initially allocated in fiscal full-time faculty in fiscal year 2021–22, including year 2021–22 in that year on new full-time faculty positions. Extended the the following: audit period to fiscal year 2018–19 and the allocation that began in that year to a. The percentage of these funds that each determine how districts were expending the funds. district used to fill full-time faculty positions. • Reviewed documentation at Foothill-De Anza and San Diego showing the b. Whether the districts used any portion of number of full-time faculty positions created in fiscal year 2018–19 and the actual the funds for other purposes. If so, identify costs of those positions in subsequent years to determine the percentage of those purposes, the districts’ justification funds used. Reviewed documentation from both districts showing the number of for those expenditures, and the individual full-time faculty positions created in fiscal year 2021–22 and the budgeted cost of or entities that authorized the use of those those positions. Interviewed fiscal and human resources staff for perspective. designated funds. • Interviewed fiscal staff at Kern and Los Rios and determined that neither district c. The districts’ projected and actual costs per tied the funds to specific positions. Collected documentation showing the new full-time faculty hired and how the number of full-time faculty hired between fiscal years 2018–19 and 2021–22 and districts determined those costs. the estimated costs of those positions. • Interviewed fiscal staff at the districts and reviewed documentation regarding how the funds had been used. • Obtained perspective from the districts and the Chancellor’s Office on the justification and authorization for any expenditures for other purposes we identified. • Reviewed documentation at Foothill-De Anza and San Diego showing the districts’ methodology for determining how many full-time faculty positions to create with the funding. For those positions created in fiscal year 2018–19, reviewed subsequent actual costs of the positions. The districts based their projections on averages for full-time faculty salary and benefit costs, and we based the actual costs on payroll records. We identified no concerns with the districts’ projected or actual costs. • Interviewed fiscal staff at Kern and Los Rios and determined that because the districts did not tie the funds to specific positions, it was not feasible to determine the projected or actual costs of positions. 4 Evaluate the selected districts’ recruiting and • Analyzed demographic data from the Chancellor’s Office to determine major hiring practices for full-time faculty positions by differences between students and faculty, as well as changes over time. doing the following: • Interviewed staff at the Chancellor’s Office and the four districts to determine a. To the extent possible, compare the barriers to hiring diverse faculty. ethnicity, sex, and gender of part-time • Compared how the demographic composition of the applicant pool changed from faculty and enrolled students to full-time initial applicants to the qualified applicant pool, to determine whether key points faculty, including those hired as the result in the process appeared to limit diversity. At Los Rios, determined no such limits of the fiscal year 2021–22 state budget were apparent. For districts that could not provide this demographic information, allocation for hiring full-time faculty. To the interviewed staff at those districts to determine why this was not done. extent possible, identify factors contributing • Evaluated barriers using census data and documents from the Chancellor’s Office to any significant differences identified. and the four districts, including hiring procedures, EEO plans, and reports. b. Assess the extent to which the selected • Obtained data from the four districts and calculated statistics related to the districts implement best practices ethnicity and gender of full-time and part-time instructors who taught classes for for recruiting a qualified and diverse credit and of the students registered for those classes. applicant pool. • Interviewed staff at the Chancellor’s Office and the districts and reviewed the Chancellor’s Office’s recent publications to identify best practices that may improve the percentage of full-time faculty instruction and faculty diversity. • Evaluated the nine multiple methods the Chancellor’s Office offers as options for districts to qualify for EEO funds. Evaluated the Chancellor’s Office’s oversight of districts’ implementation of these methods. • Identified and evaluated best practices described in academic studies that may improve the percentage of instruction by full-time faculty and faculty diversity. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 41 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD 5 Identify the reasons why the selected districts • Interviewed staff at the Chancellor’s Office to identify potential barriers in policies, have not achieved the goal of having 75 percent practices, or other areas that may prevent the districts from increasing their of instruction taught by full-time faculty, full-time faculty percentage and the diversity of full-time faculty. including whether there have been any delays • Interviewed staff at the Chancellor’s Office and reviewed documentation to in the process. Determine whether barriers exist identify the benefits and challenges of a requirement to measure actual full-time in policies, practices, or other areas that may faculty instruction and track the districts’ progress in reaching this goal. Although prevent the districts from achieving this goal districts were able to use the funds to hire additional full-time positions, they and from hiring a diverse full-time faculty. assert that they would need further funding beyond the additional funding the Legislature currently appropriates to reach or remain at the 75 percent goal. 6 Review and assess any other issues that are None identified. significant to this audit. Source: Audit workpapers. Assessment of Data Reliability The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer-processed information we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. In performing this audit, we relied on enrollment and instruction data obtained from Foothill-De Anza, Kern, Los Rios, and San Diego. To evaluate these data, we reviewed existing information about the data, interviewed staff members knowledgeable about the data, and performed electronic testing of the data. As a result, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Additionally, we relied on demographic data we obtained from the Chancellor’s Office. We interviewed staff members knowledgeable about the data and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of presenting historical demographic trends for students and faculty. 42 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 43 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 * 1 2 3 * California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 57. 44 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 4 5 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 45 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 6 7 8 46 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 9 10 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 47 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 11 12 13 14 48 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 15 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 49 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 • • • • • 16 50 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 17 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 51 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 18 52 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 19 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 53 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 • • • 20 21 54 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 55 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 22 56 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 57 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Comments CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM THE CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit from the Chancellor’s Office. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the response. The Chancellor’s Office’s statement that the report is misleading is incorrect and 1 deflects from its own responsibilities. Education Code section 70901 gives the Board of Governors, and by extension the Chancellor’s Office, the responsibility to establish conditions entitling districts to receive state funds, the duty to carry out periodic reviews of districts to determine whether those conditions have been met, and the authority to adopt rules and regulations to execute those functions. Our audit identifies the lack of progress toward the State’s goal for instruction by full-time faculty, the improper use of state funding, and the failure to implement certain EEO practices that have resulted from the Chancellor’s Office’s insufficient oversight. While districts have their own responsibility to adhere to state law—and our report appropriately criticizes the districts on pages 19 and 20—the Chancellor’s Office’s own authority expressed under Section 70901 should not be minimized. The recommendations we make to the Chancellor’s Office on pages 5 and 6 can and should be implemented under its existing authority. We do not state or imply that the Chancellor’s Office’s is governed only by its own 2 discretion. Rather, we frequently refer to the requirements of state law to which community colleges should adhere. In regard to regulations, we acknowledge the Board of Governors—administratively assisted by the Chancellor’s Office—must engage in a sometimes lengthy consultation process in the development and review of policies. However, it remains that the Board of Governors has full authority to adopt rules and regulations necessary and proper to execute its functions. The Board of Governors—assisted by the Chancellor’s Office—created a full-time faculty calculation in regulations that, as we point out on page 9, does not measure full-time faculty in alignment with the 75 percent goal established in state law. Thus, the Chancellor’s Office is following rules that it established when those regulations were created under its own authority. Our conclusions and recommendations do not ignore these regulations; rather, they demonstrate that they need to be corrected. We recognize the role of local control in the administration of districts; however, 3 our audit focused on areas where the Board is responsible for determining minimum standards for receiving state funding and verifying that districts are meeting those standards, as we describe on page 7. Nothing in our report suggests the Board or the Chancellor, as the system’s chief executive officer, should supersede local authority and control. Rather, when districts accept state funds, they need to comply with the state directives associated with those funds and the Chancellor’s Office, through the authority established in Education Code 70901, must hold them accountable for this compliance. 58 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 4 Community college districts certainly hold the primary responsibility for adhering to EEO principles. However, that condition does not negate the Board of Governors and the Chancellor’s Office’s own duties to ensure districts’ compliance with those principles. Education Code section 70901, Education Code sections beginning with section 87100, and their supporting regulations give the Chancellor’s Office the authority to ensure districts’ compliance with EEO principles. Thus, the Chancellor’s Office is responsible, given its authority under state law, for monitoring and ensuring campuses spend EEO funds in a manner consistent with state law and its own policies. 5 The Chancellor’s Office’s response seems to suggest that the Legislature’s 75 percent goal may not be correlated with positive student outcomes. To clarify, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed our office to evaluate why selected districts have not achieved the 75 percent goal and whether barriers exist in policies, practices, or other areas that prevent districts from achieving this goal. As our report points out, the Chancellor’s Office’s limited oversight is such a barrier. Specifically, the Chancellor’s Office has not monitored campus spending, developed a suitable metric of full-time faculty instruction, or collected hiring data from the campuses to measure progress. We believe the Chancellor’s Office can and should play a larger role in monitoring progress towards the State’s 75 percent goal. 6 We did not find that the increasing costs of faculty positions over time was a contributing factor to any improper use or neglect of state funds. Rather, as stated on page 20, the factors included a district’s confusion about guidance from the Chancellor’s Office and inadequate tracking of the funds. Therefore, a discussion of the impact of excluding a cost of living adjustment in the appropriations was not needed for our analysis. Should the Chancellor’s Office, as the oversight entity responsible for setting the requirements for community colleges to receive state funding, seek to initiate this discussion with state lawmakers, it would benefit from implementing our recommendation on page 5 for districts to track and report on the use of associated funds. 7 We acknowledge the Chancellor’s Office’s distinction that a lower FON results specifically from funded enrollment decreases. As such, we modified the sentence on page 10 to better recognize this relationship. However, this detail does not change the accuracy of our statement on page 16 that adjustments to the FON are based on changes in funding and enrollment, and as such, the overall FON has decreased slightly over the last 20 years. 8 Contrary to the Chancellor’s Office’s assertion, our audit report adequately captures the goal of EEO programs. The Chancellor’s Office supports its assertion that the report does not do so by citing state law, but our report includes reference to the same language from that law twice: once on page 11, and again on page 26. 9 The Chancellor’s Office mischaracterizes our discussion of EEO issues in the report. We acknowledge the progress that has been made to diversify community college faculty, while accurately noting that the faculty is still not representative of the population of community college students. The audit objectives approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed us to compare the demographics of students and faculty and there is no prohibition on using data to examine progress in CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 59 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 diversity. As we state on page 23, 47 percent of community college students identify as Hispanic, but only 18 percent of faculty identify as Hispanic. As we show in Table 3 on page 23, the largest difference between student and faculty populations by far is for the populations that identify as Hispanic. We use this data to demonstrate that there is a disparity “in the racial or ethnic makeup of the workforce as compared to the student population,” which in its response the Chancellor’s Office acknowledges “may certainly indicate a problem with the recruitment and retention of employees of a particular group and inform district’s recruitment efforts.” We at no point in the audit report suggest that community colleges should implement hiring practices that violate Proposition 209. The Chancellor’s Office is incorrect in stating that we do not recognize the role of 10 faculty turnover rates in the diversification of the workforce. We include a discussion of this very point on page 25 of the audit report. However, it should be noted that the draft copy of the report we provided to the Chancellor’s Office, in order to maintain confidentiality with each auditee, redacted the comments of a vice chancellor at San Diego shown on page 25. Thus, the Chancellor’s Office would not have known that we had included this perspective in the audit report when it prepared its response. On page 26 our report accurately describes the nine multiple methods, including 11 that the Chancellor’s Office currently requires implementation of only seven of the nine methods. We further report on page 28 that an executive at the Chancellor’s Office asserts that districts now have more resources and time to implement these best practices than they did in 2015 and that all nine methods are now realistic expectations for the districts. However, as we note on page 28, the Chancellor’s Office does not verify whether or to what extent the districts carried out the methods they claimed to have implemented. As we note in page 28 of the report, the Chancellor’s Office’s goal was to gradually 12 increase the compliance requirements over time, and an executive at the Chancellor’s Office asserted that all nine methods are now realistic expectations for the districts. Our recommendation on page 5 of the report to require districts to implement all of the multiple methods in order to receive EEO funding will help address challenges we identify in the report, and is based on discussions with the Chancellor’s Office, including its executive who, as we report on page 28, asserted that all nine methods are now realistic expectations for the districts. The process the Chancellor’s Office describes, in which districts submit a report of 13 their EEO activities that is approved by the district’s board, is a reporting function, and not a verification of compliance with the multiple methods. As we note in the report on page 28, currently the Chancellor’s Office awards EEO funding to districts on the condition that they submit an annual certification form declaring that they have implemented seven of the multiple methods, but the Chancellor’s Office does not take the next step: verifying whether or to what extent the districts carried out the methods they claimed to have implemented. As we state on page 7, the Board, which is responsible for determining minimum standards for receiving state funding and verifying that districts are meeting those standards, delegates fiscal oversight responsibilities to the Chancellor’s Office. Further, as described on page 29, the lack of Chancellor’s Office review means there is heightened risk that districts are 60 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 receiving EEO funds and not implementing programs intended to improve diversity, and this lack of oversight from the Chancellor’s Office has even greater significance due to the recent increase in EEO funding. 14 We disagree with the Chancellor’s Office’s position that it does not have statutory authority to use EEO funds to provide monitoring of districts’ EEO efforts. Education Code section 87108 expressly provides that the Board of Governors, and by extension the Chancellor’s Office, “may use not more than 25 percent of the revenues in the [EEO] fund to provide technical assistance, service, monitoring, and compliance functions.” The statute goes on to state that the remaining balance may be allocated to individual districts. Title 5, section 53030 of the California Code of Regulations also directs that resources provided to the Board of Governors shall be placed in an EEO fund, and that “A portion of the fund, but not more than 25 percent, shall be set aside to provide technical assistance, service, monitoring, and compliance functions.” The regulation goes on to state that a portion of the funds not so allocated shall be allocated to the districts. Accordingly, we believe the Chancellor’s Office does have the authority to use a portion of EEO funds to provide monitoring of districts. 15 The Chancellor’s Office’s concern that districts are not being held accountable for their legal and ethical obligations is puzzling given its own responsibility in this area. As we note on page 29 of the report, under its authority to monitor the use of the EEO funds, the Chancellor’s Office is responsible for ensuring that only districts that adequately comply with the multiple methods requirements receive the funds. As indicated on page 28, each of the districts we reviewed were unable to demonstrate adequate implementation of at least one of the methods they claimed to have implemented. Although the districts should be faulted for inadequate implementation in the instances we identify in Chapter 2, the way to ensure proper implementation in the future is for the Chancellor’s Office to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. 16 As we state on page 28, the Legislature increased the EEO funds appropriation by an additional $10 million, bringing the total EEO funding award to $12.8 million. The Chancellor’s Office’s discussion of the additional funding emphasizes the importance of oversight. Without verifying that the districts receiving this money have fully implemented the methods they list on their certification forms, the Chancellor’s Office cannot ensure that the districts are making the efforts necessary to promote diversity. 17 We do not criticize the pace of adoption of best practices. We identify additional best practices the Chancellor’s Office could encourage districts to implement, and we identify those districts that have and have not already used the practices. We acknowledge on page 31 that cluster hiring may not benefit all districts. 18 The timing of the audit did not hinder our ability to work with the Chancellor’s Office’s planning team to propose the recommendations on page 5 and 6. These recommendations incorporate the Chancellor’s Office’s future plans, including requiring districts to implement all of the multiple methods, and updating its multiple methods process every three years. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 61 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 The Chancellor’s Office is incorrect that recommendations 1 and 2 are based solely 19 on analysis of the four districts we visited. To the contrary, those recommendations are based on our analysis of the regulations the Chancellor’s Office describes. As we state on page 9, the Chancellor’s Office’s regulations were never a strict calculation of instruction. The text box on that page outlines elements the regulations include, such as unpaid leave, and exclude, such as replacement faculty. These elements render the Chancellor’s Office’s faculty calculation different from our more suitable calculation of instruction. Our analysis of the four districts only serves to demonstrate the effect of these differences. On page 18, we explain that the unpredictable variation of the Chancellor’s Office’s faculty calculation across districts further demonstrates why the faculty calculation is not an accurate metric in the context of the state’s goal for the percent of instruction by full-time faculty. The Chancellor’s Office is correct that, when it allocated the full-time hiring funds to 20 the districts, it did not require districts to track and report on the funds separately. We identify several ways this lack of accountability limits the usefulness of the funding. Specifically beginning on page 19 we describe how two of the districts we reviewed did not always use the funds properly and the other two could not provide adequate assurance that they had used the funds as intended. The Chancellor’s Office claims that districts already report on their progress toward 21 meeting the goal of 75 percent instruction by full-time faculty. However, as we discuss beginning on page 16 of the report, the current mechanism for monitoring this goal is unsuitable for that purpose. Therefore, districts should report on the goal using a suitable metric, which we recommend on page 5. We do not suggest that the Chancellor’s Office “blindly recommend” any practice. 22 In fact, our recommendation on page 6 is for the Chancellor’s Office to regularly determine the most effective and feasible best practices for districts to implement and then update its multiple methods process to include those selected best practices. 62 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 63 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Judy C. Miner, Ed.D. Chancellor February 2, 2023 Sent via encrypted link California State Auditor * 621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Foothill-De Anza Community College District’s formal response to the California State Audit 2022-113 To Whom It May Concern: The District appreciates the opportunity to review the draft report and provide feedback. The District finds the use of the term "improper" unfairly characterizes the district’s use of the first year of the full-time 1 faculty funding, leading the typical reader of this report to assume improper intent. We respectfully request that term be modified or further clarified so as to more clearly reflect the district’s good-faith use of funds at the time. Although written communications from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office indicated that the funds were for full-time hiring, verbal direction given by staff from the Chancellor’s 2 Office indicated that the 2018-19 full-time faculty funding could be used for any instructional purpose until full-time hiring could occur. Though we did reach out to the State Chancellor’s Office with concerns about the timing of our permanent faculty hiring process, no guidance to the contrary was issued in 2021-22. Accordingly, the district maintains it acted in good faith to comply with State Chancellor’s Office guidance sought at the time. Further, we maintain that Foothill-De Anza used the funding as permitted and in the best interest of our students. The District would also like to reiterate our recommendation that more attention is paid to both the timing of the funds in relation to hiring cycles and the reporting and spending requirements of funds 3 designated as restricted or general. In this case, the timing and manner in which funds were issued as part of the General Fund, but with tracking and reporting requirements more in line with restricted types of funds, was problematic in retrospect. Additional considerations, such as the lack of any ongoing COLA to support the continuation of the positions through future years, are problematic – particularly with undocumented guidance from the State Chancellor’s Office, which is the agency responsible for allocation of the funding to districts. Sincerely, Judy C. Miner, Ed.D. Chancellor (minerjudy@fhda.edu) 12345 El Monte Road • Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 • 650.949.6100 • Fax 650.941-1638 • www.fhda.edu Board of Trustees Patrick Ahrens Laura Casas Pearl Cheng Peter Landsberger Gilbert Wong * California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 65. 64 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only. CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR 65 February 2023 | Report 2022-113 Comments CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the response to our audit from Foothill-De Anza. Although we did not direct any recommendations to the individual community college districts we reviewed, we provided the districts an opportunity to review the draft report because we reference the districts multiple times for examples and perspective. The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of the response. As used in the report on page 20, the word “improper” describes Foothill-De Anza’s 1 use of the funds on part-time faculty costs but does not describe the intent of the district. On the same page, we provide the district’s perspective that it used the funding in good faith for instructional purposes. However, as we state in the report, the Budget Act required districts to use the funds to hire new full-time faculty, and therefore, using the funds for another purpose was improper. Undocumented verbal communications do not meet required standards for 2 audit evidence. As we note on page 20, our review of the guidance issued by the Chancellor’s Office showed that it provided clear direction that districts were expected to use the funds to hire new full-time faculty. Our recommendation on page 5 to the Chancellor’s Office to require reporting on the 3 funds is intended to provide the additional oversight the district desires. As we note on page 20, such required reporting would allow the Chancellor’s Office to monitor districts’ use of the funds.