DOCUMENT RESUME ED 327 262 JC 910 079 AUTHOR Storey, William L. Update on Long-Range Planning Activities. TITLE INSTITUTION California State Postsecondary Education Commission, Sacramento. PUB DATE 28 Jan 91 NOTE 17p.; Discussed as Agenda Item 5 at a meeting of the California State Postsecondary Education Commission (Sacramento, CA, January 28, 1991). PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) -- Statistical Data (110) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Budgets; *College Planning; *Community Colleges; Educational Development; Educational Legislation; *Enrollment Projections; Enrollment Trends; *Financial Problems; Governing Boards; *Long Range Planning; Master Plans; Planning Commissions; Public Colleges; State Colleges; *State Universities; Two Year Colleges IDENTIFIERS *California ABSTRACT In response to newly revised enrollment projections, the defeat November 1990 of a $450 million higher education bond . issue (PropcJition 143), and the California Governor's proposed 1991-92 budget, this report provides an update on the long-range planning activities of the California Postsecondary Education Commission and its segments. The introduction to the report reiterates the three primary recommendations of the Commission outlined in previous versions of the long-range plan. These recommendations state that increasing enrollments must be anticipated for in all segments of higher education with appropriate plans for expansion, that policy assumptions contained in the ?faster Plan (such as qualified student access and low fees) must remain in place, and that the segmental governing boards must lay the groundwork for balancing competing educational goals in the face of budget constraints. Following the introduction, section 1 presents the status of long-range planning activities for each of the state's three public higher education segments (the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges). Section 2 provides enrollment projections, with specific data covering the community colleges for the years 1989-90 thl-ough 2005-06. Report conclusions include the following: (1) budget deficit figures indicate that California higher education will not be able to enroll the thousands of additional students will be seeking enrollment during the next 15 years; (2) given these same budget figures, each of the three postsecondary education segments will have difficulty in serving students already enrolled; and (3) the uncertainty of current conditions will severely hamper Planning activiLies. (JMC) J Update on Long Range Planning Activities William L. Storey U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS Office of Educatonal Research and Improvement MATERIAL. HAS BEEN GRANTED BY EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) E. Testa 0 Tho document has been reproduced as received from the parson or organgation Wing it. changes have been made to Improve )1(#°11.17or reproducton quahty Points or view or opnions stated in tho docu- TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ment do not necessarily represent official OERI posit.= or policy. INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." Discussed as Agenda Itea 5 at a meeting of the California State Postsecondary Education Commission (Sacramento, CA, January 28, 1991). r cy- California State Posts..condary Education Commission, Sacramento ,0 0- d b BEST COPY AVAILABLE - -- -7. 'a _ Information Item Administration and Liaison Committee Update on Long-Range Planning Activities This staff report provides another update of the Commis- sion's and segments' long-range planning activities, espe- cially in light of last November's defeat of Proposition 143 (the $450 million higher education bond issue), newly re- vised enrollment projections, and the Governor's proposed 1991-92 budget. Respcnsible Sti.sfr: William L. Storey. Update on Long-Range Planning Activities sions between the competing goals of main- Introduction taining short- and long-term policy commit- In January 1990, the Commission adopted Higher tnents and coping with short-term budget re- Education at the Crossroack: Planning for the Twen- alities. The Commission needs to take a lead ty-First Century (1990a), in which it established a role in revisiting the State's student fee and general framework to guide its ongoing involve- financial aid policies. While it may not be ment in the growth plans of California's higher edu- necessary to increase fees, it is prudent to as- cation segments. Subsequently, in September of sume that there will be pressure from some that year, the staff prepared an update (1990c) that quarters to do so. The Commission must be discussed the then current budget crisis, the possi- prepared to participate in these discussions ble effects of the passage of Proposition 111, and the with the best factual analysis available about probability that the extreme shortage of fiscal re- how current policies are working, as well as sources would continue. the capacity to critically evaluate alterna- tives. The Commission also needs to work in The September report contained three recommen- dations, which, because they continue to be timely collaboration with the segments on strategies for maintaining academic planning priorities and help form a context for the current update, are while absorbing short-term budget cuts. Al- repeated in their entirety here: though college and university budgets are 1. The segments and the State should continue notoriously hard to cut, we must carefully ex- to plan for needed expansion. Growth is a re- amine whether we can do better at absorbing ality, and pressure for additional enrollments short-term cuts without cutting into academ- will mount whether or not the State is pre- ic programs (p. 4). pared to accommodate it. 2. The policy assumptions underlying the Mas- Since those recommendations were written, events ter Plan for Higher Education must remain small and great have occurred, all of which will al- ter the planning environment in ways that cannot in place, if only because the State-level politi- cal landscape is too unstable at this point for yet be foreseen. What were once thought to be ma- jor events, such as the electoral defeat of a major them to be revisited. Neverthelesrs, it is im- portant to recognize that when education's higher education i:ond issue and the inauguration short- and long-term policy goals are incom- of a new governor, now seem relatively less signifi- cant in comparison to a national recession of un- patible with current budgetary realities, the fmancing needed to accomplish these goals known dimensions and possibly the worst budget will likely give way to the budget crisis of the crisis in California's history. And even t},ose events day. If projected revenue shortfalls material- seem to pale in comparison to the uncertainties of ize, there is every likelihood that short-term war. and crisis-oriented budget decisions will be With all of that, the Commission has stated on nu- made that will explicitly or implicitly contra- merous occasions that planning must continue, and vene some aspects of the Master Plan. Access it is therefore appropriate to present another update by all qualified students, low student fees, on the status of segmental planning efforts. Some of and program accessibility are examples of these efforts, as with the community colleges, 'are goals that may be difficult to maintain in the nearly completed at the present time, while those current budgetary environment, even with- from the four-year segments remain in various out expansion. stages of development. In addition, new enrollment 3. The segmental governing boards must try to projections, based on an altered methodology, have lay the groundwork for balancing the deci- - 4 C'ommisszon Agenda Item 5, January 28, 1991 / 1 offered the University a number of comments that just been released. All of these efforts are discussed the final ver- are expected to be incorporated into below. sion. At such time as the item becomes available, staff will report back to the Commission on its con- tents. The University has also completed the last of its Status of segmental long-range planning Long Range Development Plans. These plans do In Higher Education at the Crossroads, the Commis- not anticipate increases in capacity beyond those re- sion recommended that each of the three public seg- ported in the Crossroads report (1990a, p. 27), with ments prepare a comprehensive plan for expansion the exception of the Riverside campus, originally through the year 2005. In addition, the Commis- projected by the University to enroll 14,721 stu- dents in 2005, but currently projected to enroll sion offered specific comments on each segment's en- rollment projections, and how possible alterations 18,050. in those projections might alter plans for new cam- of puses and off-campus centers. The current status The California State University each plan is discussed below. In Higher Education at the Crossroads, the Commis- sion criticized the State University's enrollment University of California projections on the grounds that the assumptions re- In October 1988, President Gardner presented a garding the future participation rates of historically preliminary plan to the Regents that called for the underrepresented minorities were unrealistic and construction of three new geneial campuses, the in need of refinemant. Following that report, the first to be built since the 1960s. In part, this plan Legislature adopted Supplemental Language to the was based on a major expansion of graduate enroll- 1990-91 Budget Act that requested the State Uni- ments, an expansion the Commission concluded versity to "reassess its Growth Plan for 1990-2005 might not be necessary at the levels the University and continue with its long range planning activi- proposed. The Commission consequently recom- Specifically, this language called upon the ties." mended that the University plan for only one addi- State University to submit an annual status report tional campus, a recommendation the University beginning on December 1, 1990 and then on August accepted as an interim measure at the same time 15 of each succeeding year. that it agreed to review its graduate enrollment The items called for in the Supplemental Language projections. (1) a range of enrollment projections, in- include: Since that time, the University has divided the cluding the assumptions underlying those projec- State into three planning regions and stated that its tions; (2) an analysis of regional needs and priori- tenth campus will be located somewhere in the cen- ties; (3) an emphasis within the plan on expanding tral valley. From there, 75 potential sites were se- existing campuses as much as possible; (4) an esti- lected, a list that was reduced to eight on July.20, mate of the timing for new or improved facilities; (5) 1990, with the understanding that a further reduc- the timing of new campuses and off-campus centers; tion to three sites would be made in November. and (6) greater intensity in its efforts to increase the Subsequently, the 1990-91 budget crisis moved that participation rates of underrepresented student date back to March, but it now seems likely, accord- groups. ing to Vice-President William Baker, that a further The Chancellor's Office submitted the first of these delay of six months to a year is likely. In addition, reports (The California State University, 1990) to the proposed opening date of the tenth campus, Fall the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. on Janu- 1998, may also h/ave to be postponed. ary 2, 1991, and it contains a number of departures In spite of this delay, the Univ,mrsity continues to from the 1989 plan, not the least of which is an ad- work on a report on graduate enrollments that is justment of the enrollment projections the Commis- due to be presented to the Regents in February In particular, the sion found difficult to accept. 1991. This report has been provided to Commission State University now seems far more comfortable staff on a confidential basis for review, and staff has 5 Commission Agenda Bent 5, January 28, 1991 I 2 model will produce more accurate enrollment pro- with the Department of Finance's enrollment pro- jections. It expects to produce a formal enrollment jections discilssed below. projection using this methodology by August 1991. The State University's progress report takes note of With the new projection methodology in the devel- California's fiscal crisis, stating that "If fiscal con- opmental stages, and the formal projection there- straints reduce the F'TE budget allocations signifi- fore not yet available, it is understandable that the cantly below the enrollment demand for several State University is reluctant fully to satisfy the oth- years, the State's goals for its public higher educa- er requirements of the Supplemental Language. tion system will be seriously threatened" (p. 5). Nev- These requirements include the regional projection ertheless, it also offers the following statement that model, a revision of enrollment ceilings on some warrants repetition in its entirety: campuses, the reconsideration of year-round oper- Projections of enrollment demand must be ations, the need for additional facilities both on treated separately from fiscal constraints. To campus and for new campuses and centers, and the do otherwise would result in a failure to express need to intensify efforts to enroll historically under- clearly the potential demand for educational represented minorities. To each sf these items, the services. If the reality is that the state cannot State University refers its readers to the August afford to supply those services, then budgeted 1991 date when the revised statewide projection is enrollment can be revised downvard. Such a to be finalized. revision should be based explicitly upon fiscal The fmal chapter of the State University's status re- considerations and not on the mistaken notion port is entitled "Next Steps." It states that the sta- that student demand is no longer growing or tus report approach to long-range planning has growing more slowly. Such a revision would much tn recommend it, and particularly supports bring the Csu into a new era of managing ad- the August deadline for the updates. It again points missions, one in which all eligible applicants to California fiscal crisis and notes the difficulty of may not be admitted somewhere in the system pursuing long-range planning within such an un- (p. 4). stable budgetary environment. The State Universi- Within this context, the status report goes on to dis- ty promises to continue its work on regionalism, on campus expansion, and all of the other items men- cuss enrollment projection methodologies at some length. In particular, it discusses a major change tioned both by the Commission and the Legislature, but concludes, more or less, that this is not the time away from a "participation rate" model of projecting enrollments to a "student flow" model, also known for definitive conclusions. as a "cohort survival" methodology. The primary As to specific expansion plans, the State University difference is that the participation rate model pro- continues its planning process for a permanent off- jects enrollments on the basis of historical partici- campus center or campus in the Ventura area. At pation rates for various groups, which art; normally present, four sites have been selected as fmalists for arrayed by age, ethnicity, and gender. The success this facility, and environmental impact reports are or failure of any projection constructed in this way in the process of being developed. About $7 million the accuracy of total popu- depends on two factors remains available for site purchase from the 1988 lation projections, and the accuracy of assumed par- Budget Act. ticipation rates. The student Pow or cohort survival model begins with high school graduates and trans- California Community Colleges fers from other institutions (primarily community colleges), and tracks the percentage of students that In its September 1990 long-range planning update, survive from year to year. :lather like an actuarial the staff noted that the Commission also recom- table used by life insurance companies, this model mended that the community colleges engage in a is less dependent on the accuracy of population pro- statewide and regional planning effort -- a recom- jections and participation rate assumptions, since it mendation that led to the retaining of MGT Consul- begins with at least some known data, high school tants by the Chancellor's Office to provide assis- enrollment and graduation rates. The State Univer- tance to develop a statewide plan. That plan has sity believes that, once developed, the student flow Cornmoston Agenda Item 5. January 28. 1991 3 c Crossroads. year noted in Higher Education at the of now been finalized and approved by the Board These figures are not truly comparable, however, Governors. since the more recent Chancellor's Office estimate In Hight . Education at the Crossroads, the Commis- includes not only growth but the needs of ex ;ting sion indicated its satisfaction with the enrollment that campuses. Still, the numbers are instructive a projectiou for the community colleges that are de- they give an indication of the magnitude of the ex- veloped annually by the Demographic Research penditures that will need to he made if commit- Unit (DRu) of the State Depattment of Finance. Un- ments to the Master Plan are to be maintained. like its comments for the four-year segments there- The defeat of Proposition 143 has had an immediate fore, attention was directed less at enrollment projec- effect on community college expansion plans. The tions and more to regional planning, particulaTly 19'91-92 Budget Act contains some $122 million for with regard to the requirements set forth in the capital outlay, none of it for any new centers or cam- Commission's revised Guidelines for Review of Pro- puses, although a number of projects were proposed posed Campuses and Off-Campus Centers (CPEC, in the Board of Governors' request. In some cases, 1990b). The Legislature took a similar approach, funding for further construction of already ap- and adopted Supplemental Language requesting proved centers not included among the 38 new fa- the community colleges to submit systemwide long- cilities proposed in the long-range growth plan, was range expansion plans to various agencies -- the In the immediate future, this will also deleted. Commission among them. have the effect of delaying projects in the Kern, Mt. To comply with this language, the Chancellor's Of- San Jacinto, Riverside, Sierra, and South County fice developed a computerized simulation model Community College Districts. that was designed to project the specific needs of col- lege districts throughout the system. That model projected a need for 14 new campuses and 23 new off-campus centers through 2005, phasing in these Demographic Research Unit new facilities over three planning periods of five enrollment projections years each beginning in 1990. Displays 1 and 2 on pages 5 and 6 show the districts and five-year peri- As noted above, the Demographic Research Unit ods involved as well as whether a center or campus has projected an increase in California Community is proposed. Each of the 14 proposed new campuses College enrollments of about 300,000 students be- begins as an off-campus center, some of which are tween 1989-90 and 1999-2000, with the Chancel- already in existence. lor's Office projecting that an additional 200,000 The Board of Governors' plan is based on the DRU will enroll between 2000-01 and 2005-06. The pro- projection that indicates enrollment growing from jected growth is shown in Displays 3 and 4 on page 1.5 million headcount students to 1.8 million stu- 7, from which it should be noted that an accelera- dents in 1999 (Department of Finance, 1990). From tion occurs after the year 2000. Prior to that time, there, the Chancellor's Office projected enrollment the annual rate of growth is about 2.6 percent; after out to 2005 at 2.0 million students. That projection 2000, it is 5.1 percent. represents a 3.0 percent increase from Dal's projec- Similar enrollment growth patterns hold true for tion of a year earlier, and even then is probably con- the University am the State University (1991a and servative, since it does not reflect the new 1990 b). For these segments, the Demographic Research Census figures, which indicated that the total popu- Unit adopted a slightly altered projection method lation of California may have been underestimated for its 1990 series. Previously, the unit had relied in previous projections by as much as 3 percent. exclusively on a participation rate model, but it has The Chancellor's Office estimates the cost of these now opted for a methodology that "projects first- 38 new facilities (14 new campuses, 23 new centers, time freshmen based upon high school graduates, and one additional center to serve some non-district transfer students based upon population, and con- territory) t.) be $3.2 billion or about $210 million tinuing students based upon enrollment trends" per year. This compares to the earlier 1990 prelimi- (1991a, p. 1). The results of these projections, and a nary estimate of $2.6 billion or $175 million per comparison between these more recent projections 7 Commission Agenda Item 5, January 28, 1991 / 4 Unduplicated List of New Campus or Center Sites, California Community Colleges DISPLAY 1 aka Center/Canipus/Both Diatbst Both Lompoc 1. Allan Hancock. Both East 2. Antelope Valley Center West 3. Antelope Valley Center 4. Cabral& Watsonville Center 5. Chaffe? Fontana Center Chino 6. Chaffey Both 1 Contra Costa San Ramon Center Northeast 8. Contra Costa -unknown- Center 9. Desert Center Morgan ICI 10. Gavilan3 Center 11. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Santee Campus 12. Kern Southwest Bakersfield Center Inyo/Mono 13. Kern Both 14. Los Rios' Folsom Center 15. Los Rios UC Davis Campus Menifee/West 16. Mt. San Jacinto4 Both Yorba Linda 17. North Orange Center 18. Palomar Poway Center 20. Palomar Fallbrook 21. Pasadena Center East Pasadena Campus 22. Rancho Santiago' Orange 23. Riverside Campus Moreno Valley Campus 24. Riverside Norco Both 25. Saddleback San Clemente Center 26. San Joaquin Delta5 Tracy/Manteca Center 27. San Luis Obispo North 28. Santa Clarita Center North 29. Sierra Joint' Center Western Nevada City Hanford/Lemoore Center 30. Sequoias6 Center 31. Solano Vacaville 32. Sonoma Campus Petaluma Center 33. Southwestern Southwest 34. State Center Both Madera County 35. Ventura County' Center Southeast Northern 36. Ventura County Center 37. Victor Valley Center Phelan 38. Yuba Campus Woodland Note: As of 2005, this list could produce a total of 14 new campuses and M new off-campus centers. It should also be noted that all of the campuses will begin, or have already begun, as ceaters. With Hutu II Community College District 1. With Mt. San Antonio Community College District 2. With San Jose Community College District 3. Site(s) already acquired. 4. With South County Community College District. 5. With West Rills Community College District. 6. With Santa Clarita Community College District. 7. Outlay Growth Plan, January 11, 1991. Source: Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges. Long-Range Capital 8 Commission Agenda Item 5, January 28, 1991 I 5 New Campus or Center Needs of the California Community Colleges, 1990-1995, DISPLAY 2 .1996-2000, and 2001-2005 2001-2005 1996-2000 1990-1995 Long Term Mid Term Near Term District - campus (Lompoc) center (Lompoc) Allan Hancock - center (West) campus (East) center (Fast) Antelope Valley - center (Watsonville) Cabrillo center (Chino) center (Fontana) Chaffey - Center (North:ast) campus (San Ramon) - center (San Rarnon) Contra Costa - - center Desert - - center (Morgan Hill) Gavilan center (Santee) Grossmont-Cuyamaca campus (SW Bakersfield) center (relocate to SW Bakersfield) Kern center (Inyo/Mono) Kern campus (Folsom) center (Folsom) Los Rios - center (UC Davis) Los Rios (=pus (Menifee/West) Mt. San Jacinto campus (Yorba Linda) center (Yorba Linda) North Orange - - center (Fallbrook) center (Poway) Palomar - - center (East Pasadena) Pasadena - campus (Orange) Rancho Santiago - campus (Moreno Valley) Riverside - campus (Norco) Riverside - campus (San Clemente) center (San Clemente) Saddleback - center (Tracy/Manteca) San Joaquin Delta center (North) - M.. San Luis Obispo - - center (North) Santa Clarita center (W. Nevada City) Sierra Joint - center (Hanford/Lemoore) Sequoias center (Vacaville) Solano campus (Petaluma) - Sonoma ...... center (southwest) Southwestern campus (Madera County) - center (Madera County) State Center - center (northern) center (southeast) Ventura County - center's (Phelan) M. Victor Valley campus (Woodland) Yuba January 11, 1991. Long-Range Capital Outlay Growth Plan, Source: Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges. 9 Cone:Liston Agenda Item 5, January 28, 1991 / 6 - - graduate enrollments between 1990 and 2002 than in its previous estimate, but higher growth in the Projections for Enrollment DISPLAY 3 out year of 2005. Graduate student enrollments are the California Community Colleges, 1989-90 projected at slightly higher levels through the pro- Through 2005-06 For the State University, slower under- jection. graduate growth is projected between 1990 and Projected Enrollment Year 1995, moderate growth between 1995 and 2000, and 1,182,055 1989-90 then explosive growth through 2005. The change in 1,232,780 1990-91 the projection is especially dramatic in the out 1,262,180 1991-92 years, as shown in Display 10. At the graduate lev- 1,273,890 1992-93 el, the new projections show slightly higher enroll- L291,450 1993-94 ments throughout the planning period than in the 1,317,740 1994-95 1989 projection. 1995-96 1,338,760 1,357,890 1996-97 1,385,060 1997-98 1,428,410 1998-99 Conclusions 1999-20 1,484,630 The staffs September update on long-range plan- 2000-01 1,560,224 ning reported the forecasts of the time, which indi- 2001-02 1,639,666 cated a 1991-92 budget deficit of at least $550 mil- 2002-03 1,723,154 lion, and possibly $1.5 billion. The reality appears 2003-04 1,810,893 now to be more in the $7 billion area, which could 2004-05 1,903,099 rise even higher if those who believe the revenue es- 2005-06 2,000,000 timates are optimistic prove to be correct. At such Sour= Demographic Research Unit (1989-90 to 1999-00); levels of austerity, it is inconceivable that Califor- Chancellor's Office and CPEC staff estimates (2000-01 to 2:106-06) nia higher education will be able to enroll the thou- sands of additional students that are projected to re- quire education services in the coming 15 years. Enrollment Projecticns for DISPLAY 4 Each of the segments, after briefly reviewing the the California Community Colleges, 1989-90 1991-92 Governor's Budget, have serious doubts Through 2005-06 about the ability to serve those students already en- Thousands of Students rolled, much less any growth at all. Both the Uni- versity and the State University believe their 1991- 1 92 allocations, even with dramatic student fee in- creases, may be as much as $100 million short of meeting even legally mandated obligations such as full-year funding of the 1990-91 six-month salari usoo -' increases. In such a clTmate of austerity and uncertainty, plan- ning is inevitably very difficult, if not impossiblo. Not only do the crises of the moment consume valu- able staff time that must be devoted to solving im- mediate problems, but those problems also produce ...,.... .... / aw .1 Al.. .,. dm Om . awl.. am . d. IN am ..... 0.. o a generally pessimistic attitude towards future con- tags 2005 2003 1009 2001 1909 1993 1997 1991 cerns. To be successful, planning almoit necessi- and those developed in 1989, are shown in Displays tates a stable environment, and such an environ- 5 through 10 on pages 8 and 9. ment is clearly missing at the presert time. It is dif- ficult to dispassionately plan for new buildings For the University of Califor,:ia, the Demographic Research Unit now projects lower growth in under- when the one you are in is on fire. Commission Agenda Item 5, January 28, 1991 1 7