Assessing UC and CSU Enrollment and Capacity

Assessing UC and CSU Enrollment and Capacity MAC TAYLOR • L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T • JANUARY 19, 2017 AN LAO REPORT 2 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background State Has Two Public University Systems. In 2015-16, the University of California (UC) enrolled 248,000 students at ten campuses and the California State University (CSU) enrolled 394,000 students at 23 campuses. UC is a research university, educating undergraduates, graduate students through the doctoral degree, and professional-school students. CSU educates undergraduates and graduate students, primarily through the master’s degree. State Eligibility Policies One Key Factor Driving Enrollment. Under longstanding state policy, the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates are eligible to attend UC as freshmen and the top 33 percent are eligible to attend CSU as freshmen. Community college students are eligible to transfer to UC if they complete certain coursework with a 2.4 grade point average (GPA) and to CSU with a 2.0 GPA. These policies have generally guided state decisions in setting enrollment levels, although many factors can influence whether a student actually applies and enrolls at UC or CSU. Campuses Have Current and Planned Enrollment Capacity. The Legislature has certain expectations regarding use of academic facilities during the fall through spring terms as well as summer term. These guidelines determine current capacity, or how much enrollment the systems can support within their existing facilities. Campuses also develop long-range land use plans that estimate planned capacity, or the amount of enrollment they could support if all planned facilities were constructed. Legislation Requires Us to Assess Whether a New Campus Is Warranted in the Near Future. Chapter 22 of 2015 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) requires our office to review the need for new UC or CSU campuses, taking a systemwide perspective for UC and a regional perspective for CSU. In making our assessment, the legislation requires our office to consider a variety factors, including enrollment demand and enrollment capacity. Major Findings College Preparation Increasing Statewide. The proportion of high school graduates completing college preparatory work has increased from around 35 percent in the early 2000s to 43 percent by 2014-15. Some CSU and UC freshmen, however, still require remediation. In 2014-15, remediation rates were 40 percent at CSU and 19 percent at UC—down somewhat since 2000-01. Among community college students, 157,000 completed two years of full-time study in transferable coursework in 2014-15, a 67 percent increase over the 2000-01 level. UC and CSU Likely Drawing From Beyond Freshman Pools for Admission. Both university systems receive many more freshman applicants and likely are admitting more freshmen than their freshman eligibility pools under state policy. For transfer admission, UC reports admitting all eligible applicants, whereas CSU reports denying admission to roughly 11,000 applicants, the bulk of whom apply to a nonlocal campus. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 3 AN LAO REPORT Freshman Participation Has Been Increasing at CSU, Relatively Steady at UC. The proportion of high school graduates enrolling at CSU as freshmen has increased from 10 percent in 2000 to 14 percent in 2015. At UC, the rate has been relatively steady, hovering around 8 percent. California Has a Relatively Highly Educated Population. In 2014, 32 percent of adult Californians held at least a bachelor’s degree, slightly above the national average. California currently ranks 14th among states for its attainment rate, one spot below its 2005 ranking. Significant Regional Variation in College Preparation, Participation, and Attainment. High school graduates from more urban counties generally are more likely than graduates from rural counties to complete college preparatory work and enroll at UC and CSU. Urban counties also generally have a higher proportion of adults who have attained at least a bachelor’s degree. Campuses Have Significant Room to Grow. Both systems report using their existing facilities less than the Legislature’s guidelines. For the fall through spring terms, UC and CSU report using their facilities at 84 percent and 90 percent of the guidelines, respectively. Summer enrollment is at about 20 percent of fall enrollment at UC and 6 percent of fall enrollment at CSU—both well below the state’s expectations. Furthermore, both systems indicate having room to grow based on their campuses’ long-term plans. Assessment Report Assumes 11 Regions for CSU Analysis. As the state has no formal set of regions that it consistently uses for CSU purposes, we explored various options, ultimately selecting a set of 11 regions already used by the state for various education programs. In our view, these regions provide one reasonable approach, though other regional breakdowns also could be reasonable. Modest Enrollment Growth Projected Over Period. High school graduates are expected to increase modestly between 2016-17 and 2024-25. Based on this forecast, we project UC would enroll 11,000 more resident students (5 percent) in 2024-25 compared to 2016-17. For CSU, we project enrollment growth for eight of the eleven regions, with total growth of 15,000 resident students (4 percent) over the 2016-17 level. Significant Capacity Available at UC and CSU. Whereas UC is projected to grow by 11,000 students between now and 2024-25, we estimate that it has capacity through existing and planned facilities to accommodate at least triple this number of students. Whereas CSU is projected to grow a total of 15,000 students, we estimate it could accommodate 92,000 in its existing facilities and another 139,000 students were the campuses to construct new facilities according to their long-range plans. We find that every CSU region could accommodate projected enrollment growth. New Campus Not Warranted at this Time. Given UC and every CSU region could accommodate projected enrollment within existing campuses, we conclude that new campuses are not warranted at this time. Because both UC and CSU have capacity significantly beyond projected enrollment growth, new campuses likely would not be warranted even if the Legislature were to change its underlying assumptions. For example, even were the Legislature to expand freshman eligibility, new campuses likely would not be warranted in the near future. 4 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT INTRODUCTION Report Assesses Whether State Should include graduate students and nonresident students Construct New University Campuses. Chapter 22 in some relevant parts of our analysis, such as when of 2015 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal evaluating campus capacity. Unless otherwise Review) requires our office to assess whether the noted, we cite enrollment in terms of full-time state should construct new University of California equivalent students (reflecting the number of units (UC) or California State University (CSU) taken) rather than headcount (reflecting the total campuses. Chapter 22 requires our office to take number of students regardless of units taken). statewide and regional approaches for UC and CSU, Report Comprised of Three Main Sections respectively. This report fulfills these requirements. and an Appendix. In the first section, we provide (The appendix contains the text of the legislation.) background on enrollment and capacity. In the Report Focuses on Access for Resident second section, we present key findings from Undergraduates. Longstanding state policy has our analysis of the data required by Chapter 22. focused on providing access for students from Most notably, we examine state and county data in-state high schools and community colleges to on college preparation, admissions, enrollment, attend UC and CSU as undergraduates. Chapter 22 and capacity. Due to the amount of data required affirms this focus by requiring our office to by Chapter 22, we summarize our findings in analyze certain data, such as projections of public the section but include county-specific data in high school graduates, that pertain to resident an appendix. In the final main section, we assess undergraduate enrollment. Though we focus on whether the state should construct a new campus. resident undergraduates throughout the report, we BACKGROUND In this section, we provide background on policies. The state and the segments historically (1) the state’s goals for providing students access have based their enrollment, budget, and capacity to public higher education, (2) ways the state can decisions upon these policies. gauge enrollment demand, (3) current UC and CSU Master Plan Assigns Each Public Segment a campuses and their enrollment, and (4) ways the Different Mission. The Master Plan envisions UC state can measure campus capacity. as the state’s primary public research university and directs it to grant bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral S G a tate oalS for cceSS degrees. It calls for CSU to focus on instruction in Master Plan Is the State’s Key Policy the liberal arts and grant bachelor’s and master’s Document for Access. Written in 1960, the degrees. The California Community Colleges California Master Plan for Higher Education (CCC) are to provide basic skills instruction, career established a number of key higher education technical education, and lower-division instruction. policies for the state’s public sector. Most relevant The Master Plan sets forth that CCC is to grant for this report, the Master Plan set forth each of associate degrees and certificates and prepare the three segments’ missions and student eligibility students to transfer to four-year colleges. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 5 AN LAO REPORT Master Plan Has Each Public Segment Freshman Admission Criteria Periodically Differing in Selectivity and Cost. Each segment Reassessed. To gauge whether the universities are caters to somewhat different student populations. drawing from their freshman eligibility pools, The CCC system is to be open access for all the state funds “eligibility studies.” These studies students over the age of 18, CSU is to be somewhat examine public high school graduates’ transcripts selective, and UC is to be the most selective to determine the proportion of students eligible segment. Each segment also has different expected for each university system. If the proportion costs. Because of its research mission, UC has the is significantly different from 12.5 percent and highest per-student cost, CSU has the next highest 33 percent for UC and CSU, respectively, the cost, and CCC has the lowest cost. universities are expected to adjust their admission Master Plan Sets Different UC and CSU policies accordingly. For example, UC tightened Eligibility Policies. Consistent with its vision for its admission criteria after an eligibility study UC to be more selective than CSU, the Master conducted in 2003 found it drawing from the top Plan sets higher freshman and transfer eligibility 14.4 percent of public high school graduates. The standards for UC. For freshman eligibility, UC is last eligibility study was conducted in 2007. The to draw from the top 12.5 percent of public high 2015-16 budget provided $1 million for the Office of school graduates, whereas CSU is to draw from Planning and Research to complete a new eligibility the top 33 percent. For transfer eligibility, UC is to study by December 1, 2016. (As of the release of this admit students who have completed lower-division report, the study was not yet published.) coursework with at least a 2.4 grade point average, UC and CSU Assess Entering Freshmen whereas CSU is to admit those having at least a for Proficiency. Though UC and CSU admit 2.0 grade point average. The transfer function is only students who have completed the college intended both to (1) provide students who do not preparatory A-G course series, they require qualify for freshman admission an opportunity to freshmen to demonstrate proficiency in certain earn a bachelor’s degree and (2) reduce costs for areas prior to enrolling. UC requires students to students seeking a bachelor’s degree by allowing demonstrate proficiency in writing, whereas CSU them to attend CCC for their lower-division requires students to demonstrate proficiency in coursework. both English and math. Students have a number of UC and CSU Establish Systemwide Freshman options for demonstrating proficiency, including Admission Requirements. For freshmen, the attaining certain scores on state tests, advanced university systems are responsible for setting placement tests, SAT tests, or placement tests specific admission criteria intended to reflect administered by the universities. Based on test their respective eligibility pools. As a minimum results, the universities place some students into criterion, both systems require high school remedial courses. students to complete a series of college preparatory Admission Rules Differ for Transfer Students. courses known as the “A-G” series. The series The university systems set general education includes courses in math, science, English, and and pre-major course requirements for transfer other subjects. To qualify for admission, students admission. Transfer students completing these must complete this series while earning a certain courses and meeting the Master Plan’s grade point combination of course grades and scores on average requirements are eligible for admission. standardized tests. Unlike for freshmen, UC and CSU do not have 6 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT set eligibility pools for transfer students. Also in from their surrounding areas. Historically, contrast to freshmen, UC and CSU do not test campuses that receive more eligible applicants transfer students’ proficiency prior to enrolling than they can accommodate set “local admission them or require them to complete remedial areas” to determine which students are “local.” coursework. These campuses, in turn, guarantee admission for Legislature Recently Directed UC and CSU local students but increase admission standards to Report on Potential Changes to Eligibility for students from outside the local admission Policies. The 2016-17 budget requires UC and CSU areas. In recent years, however, six campuses have to develop plans to produce 250,000 and 480,000 decided no longer to guarantee admission to local more bachelor’s degrees, respectively, by 2030 than eligible applicants. These six campuses instead only projections made by the Public Policy Institute grant “priority points” to local applicants when of California. To reach these targets, the budget evaluating their applications. Figure 1 identifies specifies that the university systems could each the admission guarantees currently offered by each consider changes that would broaden eligibility, CSU campus. increase enrollment, or improve graduation rates. CSU’s Regional Role Never Formalized. The segments are required to submit their reports Despite CSU historically serving a regional to the Legislature by March 2017. function, neither state law nor the 1960 Master Plan UC Focuses on Systemwide Access. UC formally establish a regional policy or set specific guarantees eligible students access to its system but regions for the system. Lacking a formalized set of does not guarantee them admission to a particular regions, the state has used different CSU regions for campus. Campuses that receive more applicants its new campus studies. For example, a 1957 new than they can accommodate have higher admission campus study considered 29 CSU regions, whereas standards than the minimum requirements to the 1960 Master Plan considered 13 regions. be eligible to the system. Eligible students not admitted to a UC campus of their choice are referred to less selective Figure 1 campuses. Currently, CSU Campuses’ Admission Guarantees Merced is the sole referral campus for freshmen, and For Admission in 2017‑18 both Merced and Riverside All Eligible All Local Applicants Eligible Applicants None are referral campuses for transfer students. Bakersfield Chico Fresno Channel Islands Humboldta Fullerton CSU Generally Dominguez Hills Los Angeles Long Beach Considered a Regional East Bay Monterey Bay San Diego System. Unlike UC, CSU Maritime Academy Northridge San Jose Stanislaus Pomona San Luis Obispo has historically been Sacramento considered a regional San Bernardino system, with many of San Francisco San Marcos its campuses generally Sonoma drawing their enrollment a For freshman admission only. All eligible transfer applicants are guaranteed admission. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 7 AN LAO REPORT e nrollment D emanD remaining constant, if participation rates increase (or decrease), then enrollment demand increases Enrollment Demand Different From Access. (or decreases). Participation rates can change Whereas access refers to which students are eligible due to a number of factors, including student to attend the public segments, enrollment demand fee levels, availability of financial aid, state and considers how many eligible students want to attend institutional efforts to promote college going, them. Some students eligible for admission to UC and the availability and attractiveness of other or CSU might prefer to attend an in-state private postsecondary and employment options. university or an out-of-state university. Some Actual Enrollment Levels Affected by UC-eligible students might prefer a CSU campus, and Available Funding. Though the demand for some UC- and CSU-eligible students might prefer enrollment might change due to population to attend community college for their lower-division growth or increases in college participation, coursework. Other eligible students might prefer to actual enrollment at each segment depends enter the workforce directly after high school. heavily on the availability of funding. To align Demographic Changes One Factor in with their annual budgets, UC and CSU actively Measuring Enrollment Demand. The state “manage” their enrollment levels. Some of the typically has measured enrollment demand in a few strategies the university systems use to manage ways. One way has been to look at changes in high enrollment include the changing of application school graduates. Assuming no other change, an deadlines (shortening them to reduce enrollment, increase in the number of California high school lengthening them to increase enrollment) and graduates causes a proportionate increase in the referring students to campuses where they did number of students eligible to enter UC and CSU not apply (referring more students to reduce as freshmen. An increase in freshman enrollment enrollment, referring fewer to increase enrollment). can contribute to an immediate increase in transfer enrollment, as UC aims to enroll one transfer c urrent e nrollment student for every two freshmen and CSU typically UC Currently Enrolls 248,000 Students enrolls at around a one-to-one ratio. Increases at Ten Campuses. Nine UC campuses enroll in high school graduates also can have a future both resident and nonresident, undergraduate effect on transfer enrollment, as some of those and graduate students and offer a broad array students will work their way through the transfer of academic programs. A tenth campus in San process at CCC over the course of a few years. Francisco enrolls only graduate students in the Though not as direct an indicator, changes in the health sciences. As Figure 2 shows, UC campuses college-aged population (18-24 year olds) also can vary in size. In 2015-16, five UC campuses enrolled affect enrollment demand, as more than 90 percent more than 30,000 students, three enrolled between of UC undergraduates and about 80 percent of CSU 10,000 and 30,000 students, and two enrolled fewer undergraduates are in this age group. than 10,000 students. With the exception of San College Participation Rates Another Factor in Francisco, all campuses enroll more undergraduate Gauging Enrollment Demand. For any subgroup than graduate students, with graduate enrollment (for example, high school graduates), the percentage varying from one-quarter of total enrollment (at of individuals who are enrolled in college is that Berkeley and Los Angeles) to less than one-tenth (at subgroup’s college participation rate. Other factors Santa Cruz and Merced). 8 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT CSU Enrolls 394,000 Students at 23 Academy, which focuses solely on maritime Campuses. All CSU campuses enroll resident and professions. Several campuses, most notably San nonresident, undergraduate and graduate students, Diego, also offer joint doctoral programs with and almost all campuses offer a broad array of UC, and a few recently have begun running a academic programs. The exception is the Maritime small number of independent doctoral programs. Figure 2 UC and CSU Campus Enrollment Full-Time Equivalent Enrollment in 2015-16a Campus County Undergraduate Graduate Total University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles 30,928 9,162 40,090 Berkeley Alameda 28,926 8,985 37,911 Davis Yolo 27,717 5,916 33,633 San Diego San Diego 27,385 5,556 32,941 Irvine Orange 26,304 4,697 31,001 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 20,797 2,752 23,549 Riverside Riverside 18,466 2,545 21,011 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 16,412 1,602 18,014 Merced Merced 6,419 431 6,850 San Francisco San Francisco 0 2,771 2,771 Subtotals (203,354) (44,417) (247,771) California State University Northridge Los Angeles 29,095 3,116 32,211 Fullerton Orange 27,207 3,886 31,094 San Diego San Diego 26,747 3,925 30,672 Long Beach Los Angeles 26,601 3,721 30,322 San Jose Santa Clara 21,234 4,193 25,427 San Francisco San Francisco 22,782 2,605 25,387 Sacramento Sacramento 22,214 2,065 24,279 Los Angeles Los Angeles 19,289 3,180 22,469 Fresno Fresno 18,140 2,295 20,435 Pomona Los Angeles 18,723 1,019 19,742 San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 18,635 851 19,486 San Bernardino San Bernardino 14,820 1,645 16,465 Chico Butte 14,802 993 15,795 East Bay Alameda 10,961 2,106 13,067 Dominguez Hills Los Angeles 9,446 1,532 10,977 San Marcos San Diego 9,746 488 10,234 Bakersfield Kern 7,736 991 8,727 Sonoma Sonoma 7,668 632 8,300 Humboldt Humboldt 7,433 490 7,923 Stanislaus Stanislaus 6,731 857 7,587 Monterey Bay Monterey 6,279 359 6,637 Channel Islands Ventura 5,171 188 5,359 Maritime Academy Solano 1,279 37 1,316 Subtotals (352,737) (41,174) (393,911) Totals 556,091 85,591 641,682 a Includes both resident and nonresident students. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 9 AN LAO REPORT Graduate enrollment at each campus ranges from sites (planned capacity). We discuss both concepts 3 percent to 16 percent of total enrollment. CSU below. campuses tend to be smaller than UC campuses, Current Capacity Determined by Facility Use but significant variation exists across the CSU Guidelines. For any amount of facility space, the system. As Figure 2 shows, four campuses enroll number of students that can be served depends more than 30,000 students, five campuses enroll on how extensively the buildings are used. The between 20,000 and 30,000 students, seven Legislature established guidelines in the 1970s campuses enroll between 10,000 and 20,000 for how often instructional space (classrooms students, and seven campuses enroll fewer than and teaching laboratories) should be used. 10,000 students. Both UC and CSU report to the Legislature CSU Campuses Also Operate Off-Campus biennially comparing their current facility use Centers Serving Undergraduates. At CSU only, to these legislative guidelines. The Legislature campuses have established a number of off-campus has periodically reviewed and reaffirmed these sites that provide undergraduate instruction. These guidelines, though UC consistently has maintained centers provide commuting undergraduate students they set too high a standard. with opportunities to take some or all of their Use Guidelines Comprised of Three coursework at a nearby center instead of the main Components. These components are: (1) how often campus. Several of CSU’s most recently constructed rooms are available for use, (2) how often rooms campuses converted or replaced former off-campus are actually used, and (3) how often seats in a centers. The nearby box provides further room are filled. Figure 3 shows the guidelines for information on CSU’s off-campus centers serving classrooms and teaching laboratories. Classrooms undergraduates. are to be available for use from Monday to Friday, 8 am to 10 pm (70 hours per week) and actually c apacity used 75 percent of that time (53 hours per week). Two Aspects of Enrollment Capacity. First, About two-thirds of classroom seats are to be filled campuses can accommodate a certain number of throughout the week (35 seat hours per week). students based on the facilities that they currently Teaching laboratories have lower expectations operate (current capacity). Second, campuses regarding seat hours per week. The guidelines typically can accommodate more students by do not set use expectations for non-instructional constructing additional facilities on their existing facilities, such as faculty offices or research. Figure 3 Legislative Guidelines for Facility Use at UC and CSU Room Availability Room Usage Seat Occupancy Room Category Hours / Week Percent Hours / Week Percent Hours / Week Classrooms 70a 75% 53 67% 35 Teaching Laboratories Lower division 45b 61 28 85 23c Upper division 45b 49 22 80 18c a Assumes classrooms are available for use Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. b Assumes teaching laboratories are available for use Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. c UC does not classify its laboratories as lower or upper division. It instead uses an average of the two guidelines (20 hours per week). 10 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Separate Use Guidelines Exist for Summer through spring, with significantly fewer programs Term. Higher education institutions traditionally offered during the summer. The Legislature in operate instructional programs during the fall the past has sought to increase the use of facilities CSU’s Undergraduate-Serving Off-Campus Centers CSU Has 17 Undergraduate Centers. The California State University (CSU) formally recognizes seven sites as off-campus centers for undergraduate instruction—Antelope Valley (in Lancaster), Concord, Irvine, Palm Desert, Imperial Valley (in Calexico), Downtown San Francisco, and Stockton. These seven centers enroll undergraduate students whose instruction is supported with state funding and systemwide student tuition. In addition to these centers, CSU campuses provide undergraduate instruction at ten other sites. All courses at these ten centers are “extension,” meaning they are funded solely from campus fees charged to students enrolled in those courses and not supported with state and systemwide tuition funding. (The seven centers enrolling state-funded students also enroll extension students.) Centers Enroll 4,100 State-Funded Students. The figure below lists the 17 centers and shows state-funded enrollment for the applicable sites. At those sites, state-funded enrollment in 2015-16 ranged from 1,133 students at the Irvine Center to 189 students at the Stockton Center. CSU’s central office does not compile data on extension enrollment. Course Offerings Tend to Vary Based on Distance From Main Campus. Many centers are located within a one-hour drive from a main campus. These centers typically offer a limited set of programs, requiring students to CSU’s Undergraduate-Serving Off-Campus Centers take courses both at the center and the main Full‑Time Equivalent Enrollment in 2015‑16 campus to complete their State-Funded Center Main Campus Studentsa degree requirements. Irvine Fullerton 1,133 Centers more distant Imperial Valley (Calexico and Brawley) San Diego 790 from their main campus Palm Desert San Bernardino 783 tend to offer a wider Concord East Bay 467 Antelope Valley (Lancaster) Bakersfield 413 variety of courses so that Downtown San Francisco San Francisco 351 students can complete Stockton Stanislaus 189 their degrees entirely at College of the Canyons (Santa Clarita) Bakersfield — Santa Barbara City College Channel Islands — the center. Historically, Cottage Health System (Goleta) Channel Islands — centers have provided Shata College University Center (Redding) Chico — only upper-division Oakland East Bay — College of the Sequoias (Visalia) Fresno — course offerings, Downtown Los Angeles Campus Los Angeles — expecting their students Ukiah Center Sonoma — to complete lower- Temecula San Marcos — Canada College (Redwood City) San Francisco — division coursework at Total 4,127 a nearby community a CSU does not compile data on extension enrollment at off-campus centers. college. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 11 AN LAO REPORT during the summer to accommodate more campus physical plans contain an upper limit students. Chapter 386 of 2009 (AB 1182, Brownley) (or planned capacity) on campus growth for this established the state’s most recent expectations five to ten-year period, new growth limits can be regarding summer enrollment at UC and CSU. At established as the plans are renewed. UC, summer enrollment is to be 40 percent of fall No Agreed Upon Optimal Campus Size. Little enrollment. For CSU campuses in urban areas, the consensus exists on the ideal enrollment level and expectation is the same. For CSU campuses in rural physical size of a campus. Existing UC and CSU settings, summer enrollment is to be 25 percent of campuses vary notably in enrollment. Moreover, fall enrollment. even the largest UC and CSU campuses are Planned Capacity Determined by Campus significantly smaller than certain public university Land Use Plans. Both UC and CSU require their campuses in other states. For example, Ohio State campuses to develop land use plans that guide their University serves about 57,000 students—nearly physical development as their enrollment grows. one and a half times the largest UC or CSU The university systems use different names for their campus. Existing UC and CSU campuses also campus plans. UC refers to these documents as vary notably in their footprints. For example, long-range development plans and CSU refers to despite enrolling roughly the same number of them as physical master plans. Though the names students, CSU’s Northridge campus occupies differ, the processes for formulating these plans are about 30 percent more acreage than its San Diego similar, including an environmental impact review campus. Though external constraints (such as and final approval by each system’s governing environmental and community factors) exist board. The campus plans show existing and for all campuses, these constraints typically can anticipated facilities necessary to accommodate be overcome with creativity, compromise, and a specified enrollment level in the fall through monetary contributions. spring terms over the next five to ten years. Though FINDINGS This section describes several key components This exceeds the share of public high school of data that Chapter 22 required us to review. As graduates from which UC and CSU are to draw we were required to examine county-level data, under the Master Plan. The share of public high we provide most of this data in the appendix, school students completing A-G coursework with a few summary figures provided below. For hovered at about 35 percent during the first half historical trends, we provide most data going back of the 2000s, but increased steadily beginning to 2000-01. in 2007-08. This recent increase could be due to heightened interest in attending college and more College Preparation focus on preparing students for college, with some More High School Students Completing A-G high schools now requiring students to complete Than Are Eligible for Freshman Admission. As A-G coursework in order to earn a high school Figure 4 shows, 43 percent of public high school diploma. graduates completed A-G coursework in 2014-15. 12 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Significant Regional Variation in Share of high school students can enroll in appropriate Students Completing A-G Coursework. A-G coursework during their senior year, with the completion rates by county range from a high goal of demonstrating college readiness prior to of 61 percent in Marin to a low of 11 percent in enrolling at CSU. Inyo. Generally, coastal counties in the Bay Area Number of Transfer-Prepared Students and Southern California have higher rates than Increasing Statewide. Community colleges track the statewide average, whereas less populous and the number of “transfer-prepared” students inland counties have lower rates. Various factors who have completed 60 transferable units. Since could explain these regional differences. For 2000-01, the number of these students has example, research suggests that parental income increased nearly every year. In 2014-15, 157,760 is associated with student success in school, and students completed 60 transferable units, a regions with lower completion rates tend to have 67 percent increase over the 2000-01 level. lower average household incomes. Some counties Regional Variations in Number of Transfer- also have higher rates because their high schools Prepared Students Correspond to Differences more commonly require A-G completion as part of in Overall CCC Enrollment. Transfer-prepared their graduation requirements. students are heavily concentrated in coastal Many Students Completing A-G Coursework counties, particularly in Southern California. These Deemed Not College Ready in Certain Subjects. regions also have the greatest concentration of CCC In 2015, 40 percent of entering CSU freshmen were enrollment. By contrast, regions in more rural areas not proficient in math or English, while 19 percent of the state tend to have fewer transfer-prepared of entering UC freshmen were not proficient in students, as well as fewer CCC students overall. writing. Remediation rates have improved at Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment both systems over the last 15 years, decreasing from highs of 65 percent at CSU and 28 percent More Students Applying for Freshman at UC. These declines likely reflect a combination Admission Than Are Eligible Under Master Plan. of improved instruction at Figure 4 secondary schools and changes in the Share of Public High School Graduates Completing A-G Coursework Increasing university systems’ remediation policies. As an 50% example of the 40 latter, CSU now allows high 30 school students to 20 determine if they are college ready 10 prior to enrolling in their senior year. 2000-01 2002-03 2004-05 2006-07 2008-09 2010-11 2012-13 2014-15 If not college ready, www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 13 AN LAO REPORT In 2015, 21 percent of high school graduates applied further in 2016-17, as the annual state budget acts to UC for freshman admission and 41 percent established enrollment growth targets. applied to CSU. This means that applicants notably Enrollment Has Declined at CSU Off-Campus exceed UC’s and CSU’s respective freshman Centers. Enrollment at CSU’s centers has fluctuated eligibility pools. more than enrollment at its main campuses, UC and CSU Likely Admitting More Freshmen with significant increases sometimes followed by Than Called for Under Master Plan. In 2015, significant decreases. In the early 2000s, enrollment 13 percent of high school graduates were admitted steadily increased, nearly doubling prior to the start to UC and 30 percent to CSU. Because some of the most recent recession. The establishment of eligible students do not apply to UC and CSU, the two new centers during this time—Antelope Valley university systems are drawing from even larger and Canada College—largely account for this pools of students than these percentages suggest, increase. Enrollment subsequently declined during with both systems very likely exceeding their and after the recession. Several campus leaders Master Plan freshman eligibility targets. indicated to us that they reduced enrollment at UC Admitting All Eligible Transfer their centers to consolidate enrollment at their Applicants, CSU Denying Admission to Some main campuses and reduce administrative costs. Applicants. UC reports that it admits all eligible Total enrollment at the centers was 2,166 students transfer applicants. CSU, by contrast, reports (37 percent) higher in 2014-15 than 2000-01. denying admission to about 11,000 eligible transfer Enrollment Demand students. Specifically, 12 CSU campuses report denying admission to eligible transfer students. Number of Public High School Graduates Most of these denied students applied to a campus Has Steadily Increased. In 2014-15, nearly 427,000 that was outside their local area. students graduated from a public high school in About Half of Californians Admitted to California, an increase of about 110,800 students UC and CSU as Freshmen Choose to Enroll. (35 percent) over the 2000-01 level. More than half As of 2015, 54 percent of California high school of this increase came from the state’s southern students admitted to UC as freshmen decided to counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San enroll, while the comparable figure for CSU was Bernardino, and Riverside), which also comprise 45 percent. Both rates have been steady in recent more than half of the state’s high school graduates. years, although both are lower as compared to 2000 Freshman College Participation Rates (59 percent at UC and 56 percent at CSU). Transfer Relatively Steady at UC and CSU. Figure 5 rates (76 percent at UC and 74 percent at CSU) are shows the percent of California high school much higher than the systems’ respective freshman graduates enrolling in UC and CSU within one rates. year of graduation. Between 2000 and 2014, Enrollment at Both UC and CSU Has participation rates were relatively stable at UC, Increased Over Last Decade. Compared to hovering around 8 percent, while rates increased their 2006-07 levels, resident undergraduate at CSU from 10 percent to 13 percent. During this enrollment in 2015-16 was about 12,000 students time, we estimate total participation in four-year (7 percent) higher at UC and about 44,000 students institutions (including in-state private and out-of- (15 percent) higher at CSU. Resident undergraduate state institutions) increased from 28 percent to enrollment at both systems likely will increase 34 percent. (Calculating a comparable participation 14 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT rate for transfer students is more difficult because counties in the Bay Area and Southern California not all community college students intend to generally at or above the state average and Central transfer.) Valley and Northern California areas below. Freshman College Participation Rates Vary Capacity by Region. San Francisco sends the highest percent of its high school graduates to UC and Use of Current UC and CSU Space Below CSU as freshmen, with the county sending about Legislative Guidelines. The university systems 20 percent of its graduates to each system. For report biennially to the Legislature on the number UC, Bay Area counties tend to have the highest of hours students sit in class (known as student participation, whereas the Central Valley and contact hours) compared to the legislative use northern counties have the lowest. For CSU, the guidelines. Both systems report classroom use trend is similar, but its participation rates are below the guidelines (82 percent at UC and higher than UC’s rates for several Central Valley 89 percent at CSU) but teaching laboratory use counties, including Fresno and Stanislaus. above the guidelines (103 percent at UC and 105 percent at CSU). Because the vast majority Educational Attainment of instruction occurs in classrooms, overall use California’s Bachelor’s Degree Attainment of instructional space relative to the legislative Slightly Above National Average. In 2014, guidelines is 84 percent at UC and 90 percent at 32 percent of adult Californians had a bachelor’s CSU. (Our figures reflect the most recent facility degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of use data available from each segment—fall 2014 for adults nationally. Educational attainment in UC and fall 2015 for CSU.) California and the nation has slightly increased Both Systems Assert They Are Much Closer over the past decade. In 2005, 30 percent of adult to Current Capacity. . . Though their reports on Californians and 27 percent of adults nationwide classroom and laboratory space show UC and had a bachelor’s degree or higher. California’s CSU below the legislative guidelines, both systems attainment rate ranked 14th among Figure 5 states in 2014, one Percent of California High School Graduates spot below its 2005 Enrolling as Freshmen Relatively Steady ranking. California’s 15% Bachelor’s Degree CSU Attainment Varies by Region. 10 UC Regional variation in educational 5 attainment is similar to variation in college 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 preparation and participation, with www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 15 AN LAO REPORT assert they are much closer to capacity after These sites have the lowest facility use in the factoring in the use of other space. Most notably, CSU system, far lower than most CSU campuses. UC asserts that its campuses use research space to Because these centers are small relative to CSU’s teach undergraduate courses. CSU asserts that its main campuses, increasing their use would have a campuses teach courses in spaces such as faculty small effect on CSU’s overall capacity. Specifically, offices and conference rooms when classrooms or the centers could accommodate a total of around laboratories are occupied during peak hours or in 3,500 additional students by increasing use of their poor condition. existing facilities. . . . But Unable to Fully Substantiate Both UC and CSU Have Substantial Room to Claim. UC was unable to quantify the amount of Grow Under Their Long-Range Plans. In addition undergraduate instruction provided in research to reporting use of their existing facilities, both space or the capacity of that type of space. CSU, systems report their planned capacity under by contrast, was able to provide the number of campuses’ long-range plans. Whereas UC indicates students taught in other types of space besides its campuses use their own facility guidelines when classrooms and teaching labs. CSU estimates that determining planned capacity, CSU estimates its it would be at 99 percent of capacity had these planned capacity based on legislative guidelines. students been taught in classrooms and teaching Using UC’s long-range plans, five UC campuses labs. CSU, however, was unable to provide data on are below planned capacity. These five campuses the amount of other space (such as faculty offices could accommodate about 32,000 additional and conference rooms) currently being used for students, with more than half of these students instruction. accommodated at the Merced campus. (According Current Facility Use Below Summer to their long-range plans, the Berkeley, Davis, Los Guidelines at Both Systems. In summer of 2015, Angeles, and San Diego campuses already have UC enrolled about 20 percent of fall enrollment and exceeded their planned capacity by a combined CSU enrolled 2.1 percent of fall enrollment. At UC, 12,000 students.) At CSU, every campus has room summer use ranges from 26 percent at Los Angeles to grow under their master plans, with the system to 13 percent at Santa Cruz. At CSU, only two able to accommodate a total of about 173,000 campuses (Maritime Academy and Bakersfield) had additional students (including about 1,000 students summer enrollment in excess of 10 percent of their in state-owned off-campus centers). Whereas San fall enrollment. Luis Obispo is very close to its planned capacity CSU Off-Campus Centers Have Low Facility (with room for fewer than 100 additional students), Use Year Round. CSU tracks the use of its six campuses have substantial remaining capacity facilities at its four state-owned off-campus centers (with room for more than 10,000 additional (Concord, Palm Desert, Calexico, and Stockton). students). ASSESSMENT This section provides our analysis of whether a analysis. We then provide enrollment projections for new UC or CSU campus is warranted at this time. We each university system and assess the capacity of each begin by describing the regions we use for our CSU system to accommodate the projected growth. 16 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT cSu r eGionS enrollment demand and capacity, we analyze two other regional approaches in a box at the end of the Analysis Sensitive to How CSU Regions Are report. Defined. As noted earlier, the state has never Analysis Assumes New CSU Students Attend formalized CSU regions in state law, and in the past Regional Campus. For example, we assume new the state has used different regional breakdowns students from the Los Angeles region will attend when evaluating whether to construct new CSU one of that region’s five campuses (Dominguez campuses. Various regional breakdowns could be Hills, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Northridge and viewed as reasonable, with the different approaches Pomona). We believe this assumption is useful for having distinct advantages and disadvantages. If planning purposes because it ensures every new we were to divide the CSU system into a few large student has access to their regional campus. Some regions, each region would have more campuses students, however, likely will attend institutions in for accommodating enrollment growth, but more different regions and some institutions likely will students would be located relatively far away from draw heavily from other regions. For example, a their local campuses. Alternatively, if we were handful of campuses (such as Chico, Humboldt, to assume many small regions, more students and San Luis Obispo) draw heavily from other would be located close to their local campus but regions in the state for their undergraduate those regions would have fewer campuses for enrollment. accommodating enrollment growth. The exact regions selected could affect whether a new campus e nrollment p rojectionS is deemed warranted. Enrollment Estimate for 2016-17 Based on Analysis Assumes 11 CSU Regions. In Recent Data From UC and CSU. Both university selecting regions for our analysis, we looked for systems indicate they currently are growing existing regional breakdowns already used for enrollment in 2016-17 to meet state budget educational purposes that appeared, at a minimum, enrollment targets. Based on information provided to take into account both population density and by the segments, we assume increases of 6,700 geographic continuity. We settled on using 11 students (3.4 percent) at UC and 5,200 students regions corresponding to the California County (1.4 percent) at CSU in 2016-17 over 2015-16 levels. Superintendents Educational Services Association Out-Year Enrollment Projections Based on regions. The state has used this 11-region Projections of High School Graduates. We assume breakdown for various educational planning growth in high school graduates will result in and service delivery purposes. As Figure 6 shows proportionate increases in incoming freshmen. We (see next page), the 11 regions appear to balance also assume that transfer enrollment will increase population density and geographic continuity proportionately to freshmen (1:2 at UC and about reasonably well, as evident from the geographically 1:1 at CSU). For UC, we also assume proportionate smaller regions in highly populated areas (such increases in graduate enrollment, as the university as Los Angeles county) and geographically system asserts that it relies heavily on those students larger regions in less concentrated areas (such to support new faculty instruction and research. as Northern California and the Inland Empire). (Because CSU is not designated as a research Though we believe using this set of regions provides university, we do not assume a proportionate one reasonable approach for our analysis of CSU increase in graduate students at that system.) www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 17 AN LAO REPORT Figure 6 Regions Used for CSU Analysis NNoorrtthheeaasstteerrnn Existing CSU Main Campus NNoorrtthh CCooaasstt CCaappiittaall AArreeaa UUppppeerr CCeennttrraall VVaalllleeyy BBaayy AArreeaa LLoowweerr CCeennttrraall VVaalllleeyy SSoouutthh BBaayy CCeennttrraall CCooaasstt IInnllaanndd EEmmppiirree LLooss AAnnggeelleess SSoouutthh CCooaasstt 18 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Little Growth in High School Graduates Over projected to have flat enrollment, and one region (Los Projection Period. The Department of Finance’s Angeles) is projected to have declining enrollment. Demographic Unit annually projects public school Projections Subject to Uncertainty. All enrollment and high school graduates. Its model long-term projections, including these enrollment takes current enrollment in each elementary and projections, are subject to a level of uncertainty. secondary grade and carries forward each cohort Changing any underlying assumption—such as into successive grades to forecast future enrollment. assuming higher or lower growth of high school As Figure 7 shows, the department’s most recent graduates—would change UC and CSU enrollment projections indicate a slight decline in high school projections. Notably, although Department of graduates until 2020, followed by slight increases Finance projections of high school graduates the next few years, an uptick in 2023-24, and a have been fairly accurate one to two years out, decline the following year. In 2024-25, graduates their model in recent years has consistently are projected to be 7,100 (1.7 percent) higher than in underprojected actual high school graduates 2016-17. Over the period, graduates are projected to five to ten years out. As part of our analysis, grow at an average annual rate of 0.2 percent. we considered different scenarios with higher Based Upon Demographic Projections, Little growth in high school graduates than assumed Growth Expected in UC and CSU Enrollment in our main forecast. These alternative scenarios Over Period. Because 2023-24 is projected to be did not fundamentally change the conclusions the peak of the forecast period, we focus on growth we discuss in the following section. Enrollment through that year. We assume students graduating growth, however, could be significantly higher than high school in spring 2024 enroll at UC and CSU as projected were the state to change its eligibility freshmen for the 2024-25 academic year. As Figure 8 policies. Expanding eligibility, in turn, could affect shows (see next page), under our forecast, enrollment conclusions regarding the ability of UC and CSU in 2024-25 would be 11,000 students (5 percent) to accommodate the additional students within higher at UC and 15,000 students (4 percent) higher existing and planned capacity. at CSU than their 2016-17 levels. Figure 7 Under our forecast, Slow Growth Projected in each region at CSU California's Public High School Graduates would experience different rates of 440,000 growth according 420,000 to each region’s 400,000 anticipated level 380,000 Projection of high school 360,000 graduates. Whereas 340,000 eight regions are expected to 320,000 grow, two regions 300,000 (North Coast and 2000-01 2004-05 2008-09 2012-13 2016-17 2020-21 2024-25 Northeastern) are www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 19 AN LAO REPORT c apacity their capacity as needed. Although we think this approach best preserves the integrity of the concept Analysis Estimates Current and Planned of capacity, campuses rarely reduce enrollment Capacity at Existing Campuses. The following when they exceed their capacity. Were campuses analysis estimates how much, if any, additional now above capacity to continue to operate at their capacity could be gained on existing campuses existing enrollment levels, UC and CSU would have by maximizing use of existing facilities and more capacity than what is presented below. constructing new facilities up to the campuses’ planned capacity. We assume the state maximizes University of California current and planned capacity prior to constructing Current Campuses Could Accommodate a new campus, as constructing a new campus Tens of Thousands of Additional Students in the is much more costly. (Though we focus on Fall Through Spring Terms . . . Because UC uses maximizing current and planned capacity, the different approaches for calculating its current nearby box discusses several other capacity- and planned capacity, two different estimates exist related options the state could explore prior to for how many additional students could be served constructing a new campus.) at existing campuses. Systemwide, the capacity Analysis Assumes Campuses Operate at estimates range from about 20,000 additional Capacity. For purposes of our analysis, we assume students (using planned capacity data) to about all campuses operate right at capacity. That is, we 50,000 (using facility use data and assuming assume campuses already above capacity shift planned capacity is reached). enrollment to campuses currently below capacity. . . . And Many More Students in Summer. If For CSU, we make this assumption for campuses UC were to attain the state’s summer enrollment within each region. We then assume that campuses standards, it could enroll about 16,000 more still below capacity increase enrollment up to students. Because this standard is based on Figure 8 current fall enrollment, Little Enrollment Growth Projected at UC and CSU UC’s summer expectation Full‑Time Equivalent Resident Enrollment would increase further Change 2016-17 2024-25 were it to increase Estimated Projected Level Percent enrollment in those other UC, Systemwide 203,000 212,000 11,000 5% terms. For example, if UC CSU, by Region were to fully maximize Bay Area 37,000 42,000 5,000 14 use of its existing facilities Capital Area 24,000 26,000 2,000 8 South Bay 29,000 31,000 2,000 7 in the fall, its summer Upper Central Valley 8,000 10,000 2,000 25 expectation would rise by Lower Central Valley 20,000 22,000 2,000 10 several thousand more Inland Empire 16,000 18,000 2,000 13 Central Coast 31,000 32,000 1,000 3 students. South Coast 67,000 68,000 1,000 1 New UC Campus North Coast 16,000 16,000 — — Not Warranted at This Northeastern 15,000 15,000 — — Los Angeles 111,000 109,000 -2,000 -2 Time. Our analysis Totals 374,000 389,000 15,000 4% indicates UC has ample 20 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT capacity to accommodate its projected enrollment extensively throughout the year, we estimate UC growth of 11,000 additional students between now could accommodate at least triple that amount. and 2024-25. By using its existing facilities more Increasing facility use in summer alone would be Other Options for Adding Capacity at Existing Campuses In addition to maximizing existing and already planned capacity, the state has several other capacity-related options it could explore before building a new University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) campus. Below, we discuss five such options. Implementing Instructional Efficiencies. Instructional efficiencies include changes such as granting credit for college-level courses taken in high school and expanding online course offerings. Relative to more capital-intensive growth strategies, instructional efficiencies can take less time to implement and be less expensive. Associated costs generally are limited to one-time planning activities by faculty and staff. Leasing Space. To accommodate increasing enrollment demand, campuses sometimes have leased space off the main campus. For example, several CSU campuses (such as Fullerton) lease space for their off-campus centers. Leased space has traditionally accommodated relatively few students, and it is most often a short-term strategy, used until main campuses have constructed new permanent facilities. Reducing Nonresident Enrollment. UC and CSU currently enroll 31,000 and 18,000 nonresident undergraduate students, respectively. These students occupy space that could be used by resident students. Though creating room for more resident students, reducing nonresident enrollment could lead to a significant loss in revenue, as both systems charge nonresident students supplemental tuition. After backing out what each system asserts to be the instructional costs for undergraduate students, UC would forego around $16 million annually in nonresident tuition revenue for every 1,000 nonresident students replaced with resident students. The associated annual foregone revenue for CSU would be $4 million. Loss of revenue associated from nonresident enrollment could be backfilled with additional state funding or tuition increases or addressed by redirecting funding from other existing areas of the universities’ budgets. Increasing Facility Use Expectations. Increasing the legislative facility use guidelines would increase each segment’s current capacity. For example, the Legislature could revise its fall expectation to require space to be available more hours per week. The Legislature would have many associated options—from increasing its expectation on the share of desks filled in each classroom throughout the week to expecting facilities be used a certain number of hours on the weekends. The Legislature also could expect campuses to use their summer facilities much more extensively. Increasing Planned Capacity. Planned capacity is based on land use plans that are periodically updated. When campuses update their plans, they typically expand their long-range planning capacity. Another option for increasing capacity therefore is to encourage or require campuses to update their land use plans. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 21 AN LAO REPORT sufficient to accommodate all of UC’s projected projected enrollment by increasing use of their enrollment growth. Even if demographically driven existing facilities. Four regions (the Bay Area, South enrollment growth ultimately were to be higher Bay Area, Central Coast, and South Coast) could than we assume or the Legislature were to expand accommodate all projected enrollment by using eligibility, these results suggest UC has adequate their existing facilities more extensively during the capacity without building a new campus. fall through spring terms. Three regions (Capital Area as well as the Upper and Lower Central California State University Valley regions) could accommodate all projected Capacity Analysis Varies by Region at CSU. enrollment by increasing facility use during the fall Figure 9 shows how much capacity could be added through spring and summer terms. by maximizing the use of current facilities and Every Region Could Grow on Existing expanding according to campus facility plans. Campus Sites. Inland Empire’s one campus (San (Though CSU asserts that its campuses are closer Bernardino) has attained its current enrollment to current capacity than its report on facility use capacity and thus would need to construct new suggests, our conclusions on whether to construct facilities to serve additional students. Inland a new campus would not change had we used Empire could accommodate all of its projected CSU’s preferred estimates.) As discussed further enrollment growth by building out a portion (about below, CSU could accommodate all its projected one-third) of its long-range facility plan. Every enrollment growth through current and planned other region also has room to accommodate more facilities on existing campuses. students by adding new facilities according to Seven Regions Could Accommodate All their campuses’ long-range plans. The region with Projected Enrollment Growth by Increasing the most room under its planned capacity is Los Existing Facility Use to Legislative Guidelines. Angeles (which could grow by 33,000 additional All regions but one could accommodate all their students). Figure 9 Current and Planned Capacity Sufficient to Accommodate Projected Enrollment Growth at CSU Projected Maximize Use of Facilities Enrollment Expand According to Total Growth Fall Through Spring Summerb Total Campus Facility Plans Capacity Bay Area 5,000 5,000 7,000 12,000 12,000 24,000 Capital Area 2,000 1,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 10,000 South Bay 2,000 4,000 6,000 10,000 10,000 20,000 Upper Central Valley 2,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 5,000 7,000 Lower Central Valley 2,000 1,000 4,000 5,000 8,000 13,000 Inland Empire 2,000 —c 1,000 1,000 6,000 7,000 Central Coast 1,000 1,000 3,000 4,000 21,000 25,000 South Coast 1,000 4,000 11,000 15,000 29,000 44,000 North Coast — 2,000 2,000 4,000 7,000 11,000 Northeastern — 2,000 2,000 4,000 4,000 8,000 Los Angeles -2,000 10,000 19,000 29,000 33 ,000 62,000 Total 15,000 31,000 61,000 92,000 139,000 231,000 a 2016-17 through 2024-25. b Assumes urban campuses enroll 40 percent of fall enrollment and rural campuses enroll 25 percent of fall enrollment in the summer term. c Enrolls more students than current enrollment capacity. 22 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT New CSU Campus Not Warranted at This planned capacities. Were CSU to begin adding Time. As with UC, our analysis indicates CSU new facilities according to those long-range plans, has ample capacity to accommodate its projected it could accommodate another 139,000 students. enrollment growth of 15,000 additional students Between reaching current capacity and building between now and 2024-25. If they used their out to planned capacity, CSU could serve a total of existing facilities during the fall and spring terms more than 200,000 additional students. Given the according to legislative guidelines, they could magnitude of these results, various assumptions accommodate an additional 31,000 students. could be changed (such as assuming higher If CSU campuses used their existing facilities demographically driven enrollment growth or during the summer term according to legislative expanding eligibility policies) and CSU still likely guidelines, CSU could accommodate another would have ample physical capacity. Even using a 61,000 additional students. Such results indicate different set of regions does not dramatically alter CSU has considerable existing capacity even these results (as discussed in the box on the next without building out existing campuses to their page). CONCLUSION Under current state policy, UC and CSU are including by increasing the use of existing facilities projected to experience modest enrollment growth and constructing new facilities. Because these over the next decade. The state has many options options can accommodate all projected growth, we to accommodate this growth at existing campuses, believe a new campus is not warranted at this time. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 23 AN LAO REPORT r u D cSu r eSultS SinG ifferent eGionS CPEC Designated Regions One Alternative Is to Use Regions Identified by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). The CPEC was a state agency that coordinated efforts between the state’s three higher education segments. The agency’s responsibilities included collecting statewide data and reviewing new program and campus proposals. To aid in some of these activities, CPEC divided California into 14 regions. These regions share many similarities with the 11 regions used in our analysis. The key differences are that CPEC has separate regions for Superior California, the Inyo-Mono part of the state, and Orange County. Region Closest to Capacity Is Orange County. Orange County’s one campus (Fullerton) is nearing its master planned enrollment. Current projections show declines in high school graduates in Orange County, however, suggesting that enrollment is not likely to grow at this campus. Even if enrollment were to grow at Fullerton, the state could require that campus to expand use of its facilities in the summer, expand use of the Irvine off-campus center, and adjust its long-range plan, prior to considering establishing a new campus within the county. Two other CPEC regions— Superior California and Inyo-Mono—have no estimated capacity because currently they do not have any campuses or off-campus centers. We believe this is the key disadvantage of basing a capacity analysis on the CPEC regions, as such an analysis suggests the state build two new campuses in outlying areas with low population density. Regions Based on Existing Campuses A Second Alternative Is to Assign One Region for Each of the California State University’s (CSU’s) 23 Campuses. Under this approach, each campus could be responsible for enrolling students in its region and would not redirect students to other campuses. When a campus reached its capacity, the state could establish a new campus in the region. Although having an additional campus in the region would reduce commuting time for some students, building the new campus would be substantially more expensive than expanding the existing campus. Under Second Alternative, Two General CSU Campuses Already at Planned Capacity. These two campuses are Fullerton and San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo County is projected to have an increase in high school graduates of 144 students (5.6 percent) by 2023-24, and only a small portion of these students likely will attend the San Luis Obispo campus. Though the campus is already at planned capacity, it could accommodate this small level of growth by expanding its use of summer term. As discussed above, Orange County is projected to experience a decline in high school graduates. 24 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT APPENDIX Authorizing Legislation Chapter 22 of 2015 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) Section 34 (a) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall conduct a study to assess the need for new campuses of the CSU or the UC. This study shall consist of both of the following parts: (1) An analysis of the need within certain regions of the state for a CSU campus and statewide for a UC campus. To the extent applicable data are available, this analysis shall include all of the following: (A) Consideration of enrollment demand based on relative demographic levels and eligible students for each county and statewide. This shall include consideration of 5- to 10-year projections of the college-age population and public high school graduates. It also shall include consideration of data, for the most recent year available, on college preparedness, including the number and share of high school graduates completing the “A-G” admissions requirements and the number and share of transfer-prepared community college students. (B) For each county and statewide, data on UC and CSU applications, admissions, and enrollment, for the most recent academic year available, and an estimate, based on that data, of college-going rates to UC and CSU. (C) Data on adult educational attainment by county and statewide for the most recent year available. (2) An analysis of the physical capacities of existing UC and CSU campuses, as set forth in their respective master plans, relative to current enrollment. This analysis shall identify UC or CSU campuses already at maximum capacity and those with remaining physical capacity. The analysis also shall identify which CSU campuses no longer provide enrollment priority for local applicants. (b) The UC and CSU shall provide data needed by the Legislative Analyst’s Office to meet the requirements of this section to that office upon its request. (c) (1) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall submit reports, including, but not necessarily limited to, the data and analyses required by this section, to the Legislature and Department of Finance as follows: (A) A report relating to CSU shall be submitted on or before January 1, 2017. (B) A report relating to UC shall be submitted on or before January 1, 2018. (2) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall submit the reports required by this section in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 25 AN LAO REPORT 26 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Selected County-Level Data College Preparedness...............................................................................................................................28 Transfer Preparedness .............................................................................................................................29 UC Freshman Applicants .......................................................................................................................30 UC Freshman Admissions ......................................................................................................................31 CSU Freshman Applicants .....................................................................................................................32 CSU Freshman Admissions ....................................................................................................................33 UC Transfer Admissions .........................................................................................................................34 CSU Transfer Admissions ......................................................................................................................35 UC Freshman Participation ...................................................................................................................36 CSU Freshman Participation .................................................................................................................37 Degree Attainment ..................................................................................................................................38 www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 27 AN LAO REPORT College Preparedness 2014‑15 A-G High School Completion A-G High School Completion County Completers Graduates Rate County Completers Graduates Rate Marin 975 1,594 61% Stanislaus 2,407 7,472 32% San Francisco 2,529 4,238 60 Merced 1,240 3,855 32 Placer 3,122 5,337 58 Madera 592 1,928 31 Santa Cruz 1,529 2,765 55 Kern 3,530 11,506 31 Alameda 8,150 14,952 55 Mariposa 42 137 31 Yolo 1,118 2,058 54 San Joaquin 2,803 9,172 31 San Mateo 3,219 5,932 54 Butte 625 2,170 29 Santa Clara 9,618 17,941 54 Modoc 26 91 29 Orange 19,147 37,965 50 Imperial 712 2,509 28 Contra Costa 6,044 12,366 49 Trinity 26 93 28 San Diego 16,614 35,000 47 Colusa 82 294 28 Los Angeles 48,720 104,616 47 Shasta 521 1,875 28 Fresno 5,519 12,256 45 Lake 165 596 28 El Dorado 943 2,130 44 Plumas 43 159 27 Napa 648 1,477 44 Kings 488 1,805 27 Statewide 185,179 426,950 43 Glenn 121 464 26 San Benito 326 784 42 Tuolumne 134 535 25 Sacramento 6,555 15,946 41 Mendocino 215 904 24 Riverside 11,989 30,039 40 Calaveras 128 546 23 Santa Barbara 1,674 4,476 37 Yuba 196 842 23 Ventura 3,498 9,551 37 Amador 67 290 23 Solano 1,531 4,202 36 Lassen 86 381 23 San Luis Obispo 1,030 2,842 36 Tehama 133 633 21 Humboldt 430 1,250 34 Del Norte 55 334 16 Sutter 481 1,409 34 Nevada 251 1,578 16 Monterey 1,485 4,376 34 Mono 51 335 15 San Bernardino 9,658 28,564 34 Inyo 121 1,067 11 Sonoma 1,563 4,643 34 Sierraa — 2 — Tulare 2,094 6,327 33 Alpine — — — Siskiyou 110 339 32 a Data not available for the two largest high schools in the county. 28 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT Transfer Preparedness 2014‑15 Transfer Prepared Students Total Enrollment County Number Percent of Total Number Percent of Total Los Angeles 40,332 26% 309,601 26% Orange 20,248 13 137,175 12 San Diego 17,042 11 106,420 9 Santa Clara 10,893 7 65,066 6 Sacramento 8,077 5 52,079 4 Riverside 6,531 4 49,793 4 Alameda 8,080 5 44,954 4 San Bernardino 4,305 3 42,834 4 Contra Costa 4,554 3 30,595 3 Fresno 4,516 3 30,501 3 Ventura 4,897 3 29,271 2 Santa Barbara 2,854 2 27,724 2 San Joaquin 1,729 1 23,391 2 San Mateo 592 — 21,571 2 Sonoma 1,784 1 19,775 2 Kern 2,150 1 18,940 2 San Francisco 2,181 1 16,395 1 Placer 1,919 1 14,785 1 Monterey 1,538 1 13,877 1 Stanislaus 1,503 1 13,055 1 Butte 1,414 1 12,134 1 Tulare 1,430 1 11,783 1 Santa Cruz 1,026 1 9,988 1 Merced 976 1 9,843 1 Solano 869 1 7,913 1 San Luis Obispo 1,054 1 7,902 1 Shasta 678 — 6,895 1 Imperial 753 — 6,881 1 Napa 714 — 6,167 1 Yuba 630 — 5,651 — Humboldt 364 — 3,989 — Marin 417 — 3,856 — Kings 472 — 3,413 — Mendocino 295 — 2,951 — Siskiyou 183 — 2,728 — El Dorado 275 — 2,252 — Lassen 101 — 1,910 — Plumas 188 — 1,763 — Tuolumne 196 — 1,646 — Totals 157,760 100% 1,177,464 100% www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 29 AN LAO REPORT UC Freshman Applicants Percent of California Public High School Graduates Applying to UC County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 Marin 30% 30% 33% 43% Mariposa 10% 9% 5% 12% San Francisco 29 35 42 43 Madera 5 5 7 12 Santa Clara 24 27 30 36 Siskiyou 11 8 11 11 Alameda 22 24 28 34 Lake 4 8 5 11 San Mateo 23 23 27 32 Stanislaus 6 7 8 10 Yolo 23 23 25 28 Tulare 7 7 8 10 Contra Costa 22 22 22 26 Imperial 8 11 8 10 Los Angeles 16 17 20 25 San Benito 10 11 8 10 Orange 19 19 21 25 Sutter 6 7 9 9 San Diego 17 17 18 23 Butte 8 7 7 9 Statewide Average 15 15 17 21 Kern 6 7 8 9 Ventura 15 15 17 20 Calaveras 10 7 6 9 Santa Cruz 17 18 16 19 Kings 7 8 9 8 Napa 14 14 17 19 Amador 10 8 9 8 Santa Barbara 15 16 17 18 Shasta 7 6 7 8 Riverside 12 11 13 18 Yuba 4 5 6 8 Sacramento 13 12 13 17 Trinity 6 10 12 8 Sonoma 15 15 15 16 Tuolumne 12 10 11 7 San Luis Obispo 13 12 14 16 Nevada 10 8 9 7 El Dorado 11 13 15 16 Glenn 4 5 6 7 San Bernardino 9 10 11 15 Colusa 5 4 7 7 Solano 11 12 13 15 Mono 12 13 22 6 Placer 13 12 14 15 Tehama 5 5 4 6 Monterey 11 13 12 15 Modoc 1 2 4 5 Humboldt 11 8 9 13 Del Norte 7 4 5 4 Merced 6 7 9 13 Lassen 5 2 2 4 Fresno 8 8 10 13 Inyo 11 9 3 2 San Joaquin 8 8 10 13 Sierra 4 6 14 —a Mendocino 12 12 12 12 Alpine — — — — Plumas 8 7 10 12 a Data not available for two largest high schools in the county. 30 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT UC Freshman Admissions Percent of California Public High School Graduates Admitted to UC County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Francisco 22% 30% 35% 27% Madera 4% 4% 6% 8% Marin 25 29 30 26 Siskiyou 9 7 10 7 Santa Clara 20 25 27 24 Lake 3 6 5 7 Alameda 18 21 24 22 San Benito 8 9 8 7 San Mateo 19 21 23 20 Stanislaus 5 6 7 7 Yolo 21 21 22 18 Butte 7 6 6 6 Contra Costa 18 19 20 16 Imperial 7 9 6 6 Orange 16 17 18 15 Tulare 6 6 7 6 Los Angeles 13 14 16 14 Plumas 7 6 9 6 San Diego 14 15 15 14 Sutter 5 6 8 6 Statewide Average 12 13 14 13 Calaveras 8 7 6 6 Santa Cruz 15 16 14 12 Kern 5 5 7 6 Ventura 12 13 15 12 Amador 8 7 7 6 Santa Barbara 13 14 15 11 Trinity 6 10 12 5 Sacramento 11 10 11 10 Shasta 6 5 6 5 Napa 12 12 15 10 Kings 6 6 7 5 Riverside 10 9 10 10 Tuolumne 10 9 10 5 San Luis Obispo 11 11 13 10 Glenn 3 4 4 4 El Dorado 10 11 13 10 Tehama 5 4 4 4 Sonoma 12 14 13 10 Yuba 4 4 5 4 Solano 9 10 11 9 Nevada 9 7 8 4 Placer 11 11 12 9 Colusa 4 3 6 4 Monterey 9 11 10 9 Del Norte 6 4 5 3 San Bernardino 8 8 8 9 Mono 12 12 22 3 Merced 6 6 8 9 Modoc 1 2 4 2 Mendocino 11 11 11 8 Lassen 5 2 2 2 Mariposa 9 6 4 8 Inyo 9 8 3 1 Fresno 7 7 8 8 Sierra 4 6 14 —a San Joaquin 7 7 8 8 Alpine — — — — Humboldt 10 8 7 8 a Data not available for the two largest high schools in the county. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 31 AN LAO REPORT CSU Freshman Applicants Percent of California Public High School Graduates Applying to CSU County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Francisco 45% 54% 62% 69% Solano 21% 25% 26% 30% Marin 33 41 45 62 Sonoma 22 24 25 30 Alameda 32 39 46 52 Humboldt 25 22 27 29 Los Angeles 26 33 41 52 San Luis Obispo 24 26 29 29 San Mateo 30 37 44 49 Santa Barbara 16 20 22 28 Santa Clara 30 36 41 48 Kings 20 21 25 28 Fresno 23 27 35 44 Mendocino 17 20 21 27 Contra Costa 27 32 36 43 Sutter 14 18 20 25 Yolo 26 28 34 42 Imperial 16 27 22 24 Statewide Average 23 28 34 41 Siskiyou 18 21 23 23 Orange 23 28 33 40 Lake 12 16 18 23 San Diego 26 29 33 39 Butte 25 22 24 23 Placer 21 25 28 37 Plumas 19 12 16 22 Sacramento 22 24 29 36 Glenn 25 26 29 21 Santa Cruz 21 28 29 35 Amador 17 19 18 20 Riverside 18 22 28 34 Tehama 14 14 11 20 Merced 19 20 25 34 Mariposa 15 18 18 19 Monterey 21 35 31 34 Yuba 13 17 15 18 Napa 21 23 26 34 Modoc 2 3 3 18 Kern 18 22 26 33 Tuolumne 20 16 20 17 San Bernardino 18 22 26 33 Del Norte 18 12 21 16 Colusa 23 27 30 33 Shasta 12 14 16 16 Stanislaus 18 18 25 33 Calaveras 19 23 19 12 San Benito 24 27 25 32 Nevada 20 15 15 12 Madera 17 17 22 32 Mono 29 15 31 10 Tulare 17 21 27 32 Lassen 7 8 7 8 El Dorado 22 24 32 32 Inyo 20 28 9 4 Trinity 11 20 45 31 Sierra 14 24 33 —a San Joaquin 18 20 25 31 Alpine — 33 — — Ventura 17 22 28 31 a Data not avilable for two largest high schools in the county. 32 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT CSU Freshman Admissions Percent of California Public High School Graduates Admitted to CSU County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Francisco 33% 40% 45% 50% Trinity 10% 15% 35% 24% Marin 25 33 35 48 Solano 17 19 20 23 Alameda 24 29 32 40 San Luis Obispo 18 21 23 23 Santa Clara 23 28 33 37 Sonoma 18 19 20 23 San Mateo 22 28 32 37 Kings 16 15 19 22 Los Angeles 19 23 27 36 Mendocino 15 17 18 21 Fresno 18 22 26 36 Sutter 12 15 17 21 Yolo 19 21 27 34 Siskiyou 14 16 20 20 Contra Costa 20 25 27 31 Butte 22 20 20 20 Placer 16 21 23 31 Santa Barbara 12 15 16 20 Statewide Average 18 21 24 30 Plumas 15 8 12 19 San Diego 21 23 23 30 Lake 11 13 11 18 Orange 18 22 25 29 Amador 14 17 14 18 Sacramento 16 18 22 29 Mariposa 13 14 17 18 Tulare 14 17 21 27 Imperial 11 18 13 17 Stanislaus 15 16 18 27 Tehama 13 12 10 17 San Benito 19 22 19 27 Yuba 10 12 12 16 Madera 14 14 17 27 Tuolumne 16 14 14 15 Merced 16 16 18 27 Glenn 22 19 24 15 Monterey 16 22 23 26 Del Norte 15 11 16 14 El Dorado 17 20 27 26 Shasta 10 11 14 13 Santa Cruz 17 21 23 26 Modoc 2 2 3 12 Napa 16 20 21 26 Calaveras 15 19 15 10 Humboldt 22 18 23 25 Mono 19 13 20 10 Ventura 13 17 21 25 Nevada 17 13 13 9 Colusa 19 21 23 25 Lassen 6 7 6 6 Kern 14 17 19 25 Inyo 16 18 8 3 San Bernardino 15 17 16 25 Sierra 11 24 29 —a Riverside 14 17 17 24 Alpine — — — — San Joaquin 15 14 18 24 a Data not available for the two largest high schools in the county. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 33 AN LAO REPORT UC Transfer Admissions Percent of Transfer Applicants From California Community Colleges Admitted to UC County 2000 2005 2010 2015 Lassen 100% 89% 67% 100% Plumas 58 60 60 100 Mendocino 80 83 73 83 Yuba 86 86 82 76 Sonoma 84 84 88 75 Contra Costa 81 84 82 74 El Dorado 87 84 88 73 Alameda 79 83 82 73 San Francisco 79 81 81 72 San Luis Obispo 73 77 75 72 Yolo — — 63 72 Santa Clara 78 83 81 72 Ventura 78 81 77 71 Sacramento 87 86 83 70 Marin 78 82 79 70 San Mateo 77 88 85 70 Butte 74 83 74 70 Statewide Average 79 80 78 69 Tuolumne 84 80 94 69 Tulare 84 90 74 69 Santa Barbara 72 76 75 69 Los Angeles 75 79 77 69 Shasta 76 80 78 69 Kings — — 64 69 Placer 83 85 83 68 San Diego 77 79 77 68 Santa Cruz 85 84 82 67 Napa 85 83 87 67 Orange 79 77 77 67 Monterey 78 81 81 66 Riverside 86 76 75 66 Fresno 85 81 73 66 San Joaquin 85 81 79 65 Stanislaus 77 82 72 64 Imperial 86 84 84 63 San Bernardino 84 75 74 62 Kern 69 81 78 62 Solano 84 89 73 61 Merced 80 85 77 60 Siskiyou 85 100 69 50 Humboldt 100 80 86 48 34 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT CSU Transfer Admissions Percent of Transfer Applicants from California Community Colleges to CSU County 2000 2005 2010 2015 Ventura 72% 92% 79% 93% Butte 80 88 86 92 Merced 79 89 76 92 San Bernardino 74 85 64 92 Yuba 79 86 91 91 Tuolumne 82 89 89 90 Napa 78 85 80 90 San Luis Obispo 62 96 65 90 Siskiyou 71 81 70 90 Kern 78 87 81 89 Sacramento 79 89 91 89 Placer 76 86 92 89 Santa Cruz 75 92 92 89 Monterey 74 92 79 89 Yolo 20 — 93 89 Stanislaus 79 92 76 88 Shasta 80 91 85 88 Tulare 79 96 80 88 Humboldt 78 85 89 88 San Mateo 77 91 76 88 San Francisco 76 90 85 88 Alameda 70 86 72 88 Statewide Average 71 89 76 87 Riverside 72 84 62 87 Orange 71 90 84 87 Sonoma 79 93 79 87 Solano 74 84 78 87 Fresno 74 95 78 87 San Joaquin 79 91 79 86 Mendocino 78 86 97 86 Los Angeles 65 88 68 86 El Dorado 62 85 81 85 Contra Costa 73 89 75 85 Santa Barbara 68 90 61 84 San Diego 76 89 68 83 Lassen 76 70 85 83 Imperial 74 88 69 83 Santa Clara 68 91 89 81 Plumas 83 75 81 80 Marin 68 84 82 79 Kings — — 74 74 www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 35 AN LAO REPORT UC Freshman Participation Percent of California Public High School Graduates Enrolling at UC County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Francisco 14% 21% 22% 18% Mendocino 5% 6% 5% 4% Alameda 11 12 13 12 Humboldt 5 4 3 4 Marin 14 14 12 12 Madera 3 2 3 4 Santa Clara 12 15 14 11 Amador 3 3 3 4 San Mateo 11 12 11 10 Fresno 3 4 4 4 Yolo 14 12 11 10 San Joaquin 4 3 4 4 Orange 10 10 8 8 Stanislaus 3 3 4 4 Contra Costa 11 10 9 8 Imperial 4 4 4 4 Los Angeles 8 8 8 8 Tulare 3 3 3 4 San Diego 8 7 7 7 Butte 4 3 2 3 Statewide Average 7 7 7 7 Kern 2 3 3 3 Riverside 6 5 6 6 Sutter 3 4 3 3 Napa 6 6 6 6 Kings 3 3 4 3 Solano 5 5 5 6 Shasta 4 3 3 3 Ventura 7 7 7 6 Calaveras 5 4 2 3 Sacramento 6 6 5 6 Trinity 4 6 6 2 Merced 3 4 5 6 Yuba 2 3 2 2 Sonoma 7 7 6 5 Glenn 1 2 2 2 El Dorado 5 6 5 5 Tehama 3 2 2 2 Santa Cruz 9 8 6 5 Nevada 5 4 3 2 San Luis Obispo 6 5 6 5 Colusa 2 — 2 2 Plumas 5 5 4 5 Tuolumne 5 4 4 2 Placer 5 5 6 5 Mono 6 3 8 2 Santa Barbara 7 7 6 5 Del Norte 4 3 2 1 Monterey 5 7 5 5 Inyo 3 4 1 1 San Benito 5 5 4 5 Lassen 2 1 1 1 San Bernardino 5 5 5 5 Modoc 1 0 3 — Mariposa 4 2 3 5 Sierra 1 — 5 —a Lake 2 4 2 5 Alpine — — — — Siskiyou 4 3 6 4 a Data not available for the two largest high schools in the county. 36 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT CSU Freshman Participation Percent of California Public High School Graduates Enrolling at CSU County 2000 2005 2010 2015 County 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Francisco 18% 16% 17% 21% Solano 10% 11% 9% 11% Fresno 13 14 15 20 Sonoma 10 10 8 11 Marin 12 13 12 18 Napa 9 9 9 10 Los Angeles 10 12 11 16 Sutter 7 9 7 10 Stanislaus 10 10 11 16 Ventura 7 8 9 10 Alameda 14 15 13 16 Kings 10 8 10 10 Yolo 11 11 12 15 Mariposa 6 6 9 9 Sacramento 11 11 10 15 Mendocino 8 7 7 9 San Mateo 12 14 12 14 Trinity 8 7 15 9 Santa Clara 13 14 13 14 Glenn 16 14 15 9 Placer 10 11 10 14 Plumas 8 2 5 8 Statewide Average 10 11 11 14 Amador 7 10 8 8 Kern 9 11 11 14 Imperial 5 8 5 8 Merced 10 10 10 13 Siskiyou 8 7 9 8 San Diego 11 12 10 13 Yuba 6 6 6 8 San Benito 11 13 10 13 Santa Barbara 6 7 6 7 Tulare 8 10 9 13 Lake 8 8 6 7 Madera 9 8 10 13 Del Norte 10 5 7 7 San Bernardino 9 10 9 12 Tehama 8 8 5 6 Monterey 8 11 10 12 Modoc 1 2 2 5 Humboldt 14 11 12 12 Tuolumne 8 6 4 5 Contra Costa 10 12 11 12 Calaveras 9 11 8 5 Orange 9 11 11 12 Shasta 6 5 5 5 Colusa 12 11 12 12 Nevada 9 6 6 4 Riverside 7 9 8 11 Mono 8 6 8 3 San Joaquin 8 8 9 11 Lassen 2 2 2 2 Santa Cruz 10 11 10 11 Inyo 9 7 3 1 San Luis Obispo 12 13 10 11 Sierra 8 14 17 —a Butte 14 13 11 11 Alpine — — — — El Dorado 10 11 11 11 a Data not available for the two largest high schools in the county. www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 37 AN LAO REPORT Degree Attainment Percent of Adults With a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher, 2010‑2014 Five Year Average County Percent County Percent Marin 55% Mariposa 22% San Francisco 53 Trinity 22 Santa Clara 47 Inyo 21 San Mateo 45 Calaveras 21 Alameda 42 Riverside 21 Contra Costa 40 Amador 21 Yolo 38 Tuolumne 20 Santa Cruz 38 Fresno 20 Orange 37 Shasta 19 Placer 36 Sierra 19 San Diego 35 San Benito 19 Mono 33 San Bernardino 19 Nevada 33 Modoc 19 Sonoma 33 Sutter 19 El Dorado 32 San Joaquin 18 San Luis Obispo 32 Stanislaus 16 Napa 32 Lake 16 Ventura 32 Del Norte 16 Santa Barbara 31 Glenn 16 Alpine 31 Kern 15 Los Angeles 30 Colusa 14 Statewide Average 30 Yuba 14 Sacramento 28 Tehama 14 Humboldt 28 Madera 14 Butte 25 Imperial 13 Solano 24 Tulare 13 Siskiyou 24 Merced 13 Monterey 23 Lassen 13 Plumas 23 Kings 13 Mendocino 23 38 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov AN LAO REPORT www.lao.ca.gov Legislative Analyst’s Office 39 AN LAO REPORT LAO Publications This report was prepared by Jason Constantouros and reviewed by Paul Golaszewski and Jennifer Kuhn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, CA 95814. 40 Legislative Analyst’s Office www.lao.ca.gov