1. California State University, Sacramento USING A POLICY AUDIT TO ALIGN COMMUNITY COLLEGE FINANCE WITH STATE POLICY GOALS Nancy Shulock Making Opportunity Affordable (MOA) Academy Chapel Hill, North Carolina June 3, 2008

2. California State University, Sacramento Overview  What is a “policy audit”?  The California Community College context  Findings: using the policy audit Overview

3. California State University, Sacramento Policy Audit Purpose:  Show the impact of policies on behaviors/goals  Are we buying the right thing? (de facto priorities) Premise:  Policies provide the “rules of the game” – whether or not explicit and intentional  Policies develop incrementally - different players  Collective impact rarely considered  Finance policy is especially powerful

4. California State University, Sacramento Context: California Community Colleges  Largest of three public systems  Over 70% of public undergraduates  Most part-time  109 colleges in 72 districts  Mix of state and local governance  Local control but highly regulated  Low funding/lowest fees in the nation  High participation, low success  46 th among states in completion  State lacks explicit goals for higher education

5. California State University, Sacramento 520,407 Students Policies to Promote Access 314,034 Students 206,373 Students Policy Barriers to Completion Incoming CCC Students 1999-2000 238,352 Student s 75,682 Student s Non-Degree- Seekers: 40% Degree- Seekers: 60% Job Skills: 49% Basic Skills: 9% Personal Enrichment: 42% Complete Certificate, Degree or Transfer within 6 Years: 24% Do Not Complete within 6 Years: 76%

6. California State University, Sacramento Policy Audit Methodology  Define “finance policy” broadly  Base appropriations  Categorical programs  Laws and regulations on college use of funds  Fee policy  Student aid policy  Derive goals  Analyze policies with respect to goals

7. California State University, Sacramento Policy Goals 1.Increase college readiness 2.Provide broad access – credential-seeking 3.Ensure affordability 4.Increase degree/certificate completion 5.Align degree/certificate production with workforce needs 6.Ensure efficient use of funds

8. California State University, Sacramento

9. Key Finding: Policies Undermine Priorities  Favor access over success  Focus on fairness to institutions (not students)  Yield insufficient resources for missions  Inefficient use of resources

10. California State University, Sacramento Base Appropriations (Enrollment-Driven) Readiness-Disincentive to stress readiness because it could reduce FTES Access+/-Incentive to increase enrollment but not to focus on credentials. Completion-No incentive for course completion; incentive to allow late registration and to minimize prerequisites Workforce-Disincentive to meet workforce needs in high- cost and new fields Efficiency-Fear of enrollment drop fuels resistance to fees; results in high subsidy for non-needy students

11. California State University, Sacramento Restrictions on Spending: 50% Law Readiness-Discourages time spent by faculty and staff on K-12 alignment and readiness Access-Limits spending on functions supportive of access (outreach, financial aid administration, orientation) Completion-Discourages investment in support services that are critical to persistence and success Workforce-Disincentive for faculty to participate in curriculum development crucial for workforce education Efficiency-Imposes artificial constraints on use of resources

12. California State University, Sacramento Policy of Low Fees for All Students Access+/-Promotes high participation but by many who do not seek credential; limits access by limiting revenues Affordability+/-Keeps one part of costs down, but has minor impact on affordability Completion-Discourages successful enrollment choices; deprives state of powerful tool to influence student success Efficiency-Fails to target public dollars to needy students; subsidizes students who would willingly pay a higher fee

13. California State University, Sacramento Financial Aid Focus on Fees, Instead of Affordability Access-Impedes access because students do not maximize available financial aid Affordability-Students get too little aid for major costs of college Completion-Leaving aid unused leads to too many work hours and lower completion Efficiency-State funds used for costs that the federal government would cover

14. California State University, Sacramento Some Finance Policy Reform Priorities  Appropriations  Incentives for progress/success  Incentives for high-need programs  Categoricals  Reduce programs and lessen requirements  Restrictions on use of funds  Modify 50% and increase flexibility  Fees  Greater college access to fee revenue  Financial aid  Enriched funding for Pell recipients  Add academic progress incentive to fee waiver

15. California State University, Sacramento What Do We Do Now? The Challenge of Using the Policy Audit Key Messages to Stakeholders:  Policy matters! It’s not just about the money  Incentives are powerful – people are rational, not evil Strategies:  Identify better policies (Invest in Success, pp.50-52)  Consider levels of policy: institution/system/state  The grand bargain: reform and more $$  Piecemeal or omnibus?

16. California State University, Sacramento Contact Information Email: nshulock@csus.edu Website (to download or order reports): www.csus.edu/ihe