Report Measuring Institutional Costs at California’s Public Universities By Patrick Murphy, Kevin Cook, Talib Jabbar Mar 15, 2017 California has recently increased its investment in higher education after many years of reducing state support. At the same time, the state’s four-year public systems, the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), are currently poised to raise tuition for the first time in several years. If the past is any indication, intense discussions lie ahead about the need for additional higher education resources. We offer a constructive starting point for those discussions by introducing a straightforward and objective assessment of institutional costs. We rely on a measure that connects institutional costs to the number of degrees UC and CSU produce. This measure provides a clear understanding of trends in California’s institutional costs and allows comparisons with colleges and universities in other states. It also offers higher education institutions the opportunity to demonstrate progress toward their goals in an accessible, transparent way. Applying this measure to California’s public four-year institutions, we find that: Institutional costs per degree across UC and CSU fell significantly—17 percent—from 1987 to 2013. This is an important savings in a state that will need to amp up its number of college graduates to meet future economic demand. At UC, the cost per degree fell 6 percent over the period—from $116,000 to $109,000. UC’s institutional costs in 2013 were lower than a comparison group that included both public and private institutions across the nation. But UC’s costs were higher than a national comparison group of public schools only. At CSU, the cost fell 33 percent—from $67,000 to $45,000. CSU’s 2013 costs were lower than both types of comparison groups—one that included public schools only and one that included both public and private institutions. We recommend that policymakers and higher education leaders use the cost per degree measure as a way to frame higher education finance discussions. It provides a consistent, reliable, and objective measure of institutional costs and performance. For the measure to be most effective, accurate data reporting will be essential. We also recommend the reintroduction of a state-level higher education authority to add validity to the process of gauging institutional performance. Using the measure within a larger framework of agreed-upon goals would go a long way toward improving higher education finance policy in California.
blog post Improving College Placement Policies By Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Olga Rodriguez Jan 3, 2017 Making assessment and placement policies more uniform across California’s community colleges could yield multiple benefits.
blog post Testimony: California’s Future Need for Bachelor’s Degrees By Patrick Murphy Nov 1, 2016 To meet the demands of the future, California needs to substantially improve access to four-year colleges, transfer rates from community colleges, and completion rates.
blog post Comparing College Readiness across States By Jacob Jackson Oct 20, 2016 The new 11th-grade tests show how California compares to other states in preparing all students for college.
Report Accountability for California’s Alternative Schools By Paul Warren May 31, 2016 About 12 percent of all California high school seniors attend an alternative school, but far fewer than half graduate. To improve outcomes and promote the success of at-risk students, the state needs a new approach to measuring alternative school performance.
Report Improving College Graduation Rates: A Closer Look at California State University By Kevin Cook, Jacob Jackson May 17, 2016 Low college graduation rates come at a high cost—lower salaries, lower tax revenue, and fewer college graduates in the workforce. At California State University (CSU), the nation's largest university system, graduation rates have an outsized financial and economic impact on students and the state. CSU has made strides in improving graduation rates, but there is more work to be done. The system continues to struggle with graduation gaps—underrepresented students are much less likely to complete their degree compared to their peers, and these gaps have not narrowed over time. Also, CSU's on-time (four-year) graduation rates still lag behind those of similar universities nationwide. By 2025, CSU aims to further increase graduation rates while cutting graduation gaps in half. To assist campus planning for this goal, we identify several promising programs and policies. More broadly, the CSU Chancellor's Office must work with campuses to evaluate and expand successful efforts, and the state must play a role in supporting new policies to move the needle on graduation gaps and on-time graduation.
blog post America’s College Promise: An Opportunity for California By Kevin Cook May 5, 2016 Proposals to provide free community college have clearly resonated with a broad coalition of voters, policymakers, and advocacy groups.
blog post Californians and Congress By Mark Baldassare Oct 6, 2015 Even in this era of hyper-partisanship, California likely voters of different political stripes are united in their low approval of Congress.
Report Public Safety Realignment: Impacts So Far By Magnus Lofstrom, Brandon Martin Sep 28, 2015 Prompted by a federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding, California’s 2011 historic public safety realignment shifted many correctional responsibilities for lower-level felons from the state to counties. The reform was premised on the idea that locals can do a better job, and it was hoped that incarceration rates and corrections costs would fall. At the same time, critics predicted crime would rise. Four years since its implementation, realignment has made several important impacts: Realignment significantly reduced the prison population, but the state did not reach the court-mandated population target until after the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2014, which reduced penalties for many property and drug offenses. The reform challenged county jails and probation departments by making them responsible for a greater number of offenders with a broader range of backgrounds and needs. The county jail population did not rise nearly as much as the prison population fell, reducing the total number of people incarcerated in California. Realignment did not increase violent crime, but auto thefts rose. Research so far shows no dramatic change in recidivism rates. State corrections spending remains high, but there is reason to believe expenditures could drop in the future. Realignment has largely been successful, but the state and county correctional systems face significant challenges. The state needs to regain control of prison medical care, which is now in the hands of a federal receiver. And the state and counties together must make progress in reducing stubbornly high recidivism rates.
