Assessing UC and CSU Enrollment and Capacity

---

• Introduction
• Background
• Findings
• Assessment
• Conclusion

---

Introduction

Report Assesses Whether State Should Construct New University Campuses. Chapter 22 of 2015 (SB 81, Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) requires our office to assess whether the state should construct new University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) campuses. Chapter 22 requires our office to take statewide and regional approaches for UC and CSU, respectively. This report fulfills these requirements. (The appendix contains the text of the legislation.)

Report Focuses on Access for Resident Undergraduates. Longstanding state policy has focused on providing access for students from in–state high schools and community colleges to attend UC and CSU as undergraduates. Chapter 22 affirms this focus by requiring our office to analyze certain data, such as projections of public high school graduates, that pertain to resident undergraduate enrollment. Though we focus on resident undergraduates throughout the report, we include graduate students and nonresident students in some relevant parts of our analysis, such as when evaluating campus capacity. Unless otherwise noted, we cite enrollment in terms of full–time equivalent students (reflecting the number of units taken) rather than headcount (reflecting the total number of students regardless of units taken).

Report Comprised of Three Main Sections and an Appendix. In the first section, we provide background on enrollment and capacity. In the second section, we present key findings from our analysis of the data required by Chapter 22. Most notably, we examine state and county data on college preparation, admissions, enrollment, and capacity. Due to the amount of data required by Chapter 22, we summarize our findings in the section but include county–specific data in an appendix. In the final main section, we assess whether the state should construct a new campus.

Back to the Top

Background

In this section, we provide background on (1) the state’s goals for providing students access to public higher education, (2) ways the state can gauge enrollment demand, (3) current UC and CSU campuses and their enrollment, and (4) ways the state can measure campus capacity.

State Goals for Access

Master Plan Is the State’s Key Policy Document for Access. Written in 1960, the California Master Plan for Higher Education established a number of key higher education policies for the state’s public sector. Most relevant for this report, the Master Plan set forth each of the three segments’ missions and student eligibility policies. The state and the segments historically have based their enrollment, budget, and capacity decisions upon these policies.

Master Plan Assigns Each Public Segment a Different Mission. The Master Plan envisions UC as the state’s primary public research university and directs it to grant bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees. It calls for CSU to focus on instruction in the liberal arts and grant bachelor’s and master’s degrees. The California Community Colleges (CCC) are to provide basic skills instruction, career technical education, and lower–division instruction. The Master Plan sets forth that CCC is to grant associate degrees and certificates and prepare students to transfer to four–year colleges.

Master Plan Has Each Public Segment Differing in Selectivity and Cost. Each segment caters to somewhat different student populations. The CCC system is to be open access for all students over the age of 18, CSU is to be somewhat selective, and UC is to be the most selective segment. Each segment also has different expected costs. Because of its research mission, UC has the highest per–student cost, CSU has the next highest cost, and CCC has the lowest cost.

Master Plan Sets Different UC and CSU Eligibility Policies. Consistent with its vision for UC to be more selective than CSU, the Master Plan sets higher freshman and transfer eligibility standards for UC. For freshman eligibility, UC is to draw from the top 12.5 percent of public high school graduates, whereas CSU is to draw from the top 33 percent. For transfer eligibility, UC is to admit students who have completed lower–division coursework with at least a 2.4 grade point average, whereas CSU is to admit those having at least a 2.0 grade point average. The transfer function is intended both to (1) provide students who do not qualify for freshman admission an opportunity to earn a bachelor’s degree and (2) reduce costs for students seeking a bachelor’s degree by allowing them to attend CCC for their lower–division coursework.

UC and CSU Establish Systemwide Freshman Admission Requirements. For freshmen, the university systems are responsible for setting specific admission criteria intended to reflect their respective eligibility pools. As a minimum criterion, both systems require high school students to complete a series of college preparatory courses known as the “A–G” series. The series includes courses in math, science, English, and other subjects. To qualify for admission, students must complete this series while earning a certain combination of course grades and scores on standardized tests.

Freshman Admission Criteria Periodically Reassessed. To gauge whether the universities are drawing from their freshman eligibility pools, the state funds “eligibility studies.” These studies examine public high school graduates’ transcripts to determine the proportion of students eligible for each university system. If the proportion is significantly different from 12.5 percent and 33 percent for UC and CSU, respectively, the universities are expected to adjust their admission policies accordingly. For example, UC tightened its admission criteria after an eligibility study conducted in 2003 found it drawing from the top 14.4 percent of public high school graduates. The last eligibility study was conducted in 2007. The 2015–16 budget provided $1 million for the Office of Planning and Research to complete a new eligibility study by December 1, 2016. (As of the release of this report, the study was not yet published.)

UC and CSU Assess Entering Freshmen for Proficiency. Though UC and CSU admit only students who have completed the college preparatory A–G course series, they require freshmen to demonstrate proficiency in certain areas prior to enrolling. UC requires students to demonstrate proficiency in writing, whereas CSU requires students to demonstrate proficiency in both English and math. Students have a number of options for demonstrating proficiency, including attaining certain scores on state tests, advanced placement tests, SAT tests, or placement tests administered by the universities. Based on test results, the universities place some students into remedial courses.

Admission Rules Differ for Transfer Students. The university systems set general education and pre–major course requirements for transfer admission. Transfer students completing these courses and meeting the Master Plan’s grade point average requirements are eligible for admission. Unlike for freshmen, UC and CSU do not have set eligibility pools for transfer students. Also in contrast to freshmen, UC and CSU do not test transfer students’ proficiency prior to enrolling them or require them to complete remedial coursework.

Legislature Recently Directed UC and CSU to Report on Potential Changes to Eligibility Policies. The 2016–17 budget requires UC and CSU to develop plans to produce 250,000 and 480,000 more bachelor’s degrees, respectively, by 2030 than projections made by the Public Policy Institute of California. To reach these targets, the budget specifies that the university systems could each consider changes that would broaden eligibility, increase enrollment, or improve graduation rates. The segments are required to submit their reports to the Legislature by March 2017.

UC Focuses on Systemwide Access. UC guarantees eligible students access to its system but does not guarantee them admission to a particular campus. Campuses that receive more applicants than they can accommodate have higher admission standards than the minimum requirements to be eligible to the system. Eligible students not admitted to a UC campus of their choice are referred to less selective campuses. Currently, Merced is the sole referral campus for freshmen, and both Merced and Riverside are referral campuses for transfer students.

CSU Generally Considered a Regional System. Unlike UC, CSU has historically been considered a regional system, with many of its campuses generally drawing their enrollment from their surrounding areas. Historically, campuses that receive more eligible applicants than they can accommodate set “local admission areas” to determine which students are “local.” These campuses, in turn, guarantee admission for local students but increase admission standards for students from outside the local admission areas. In recent years, however, six campuses have decided no longer to guarantee admission to local eligible applicants. These six campuses instead only grant “priority points” to local applicants when evaluating their applications. Figure 1 identifies the admission guarantees currently offered by each CSU campus.

CSU’s Regional Role Never Formalized. Despite CSU historically serving a regional function, neither state law nor the 1960 Master Plan formally establish a regional policy or set specific regions for the system. Lacking a formalized set of regions, the state has used different CSU regions for its new campus studies. For example, a 1957 new campus study considered 29 CSU regions, whereas the 1960 Master Plan considered 13 regions.

Enrollment Demand

Enrollment Demand Different From Access. Whereas access refers to which students are eligible to attend the public segments, enrollment demand considers how many eligible students want to attend them. Some students eligible for admission to UC or CSU might prefer to attend an in–state private university or an out–of–state university. Some UC–eligible students might prefer a CSU campus, and some UC– and CSU–eligible students might prefer to attend community college for their lower–division coursework. Other eligible students might prefer to enter the workforce directly after high school.

Demographic Changes One Factor in Measuring Enrollment Demand. The state typically has measured enrollment demand in a few ways. One way has been to look at changes in high school graduates. Assuming no other change, an increase in the number of California high school graduates causes a proportionate increase in the number of students eligible to enter UC and CSU as freshmen. An increase in freshman enrollment can contribute to an immediate increase in transfer enrollment, as UC aims to enroll one transfer student for every two freshmen and CSU typically enrolls at around a one–to–one ratio. Increases in high school graduates also can have a future effect on transfer enrollment, as some of those students will work their way through the transfer process at CCC over the course of a few years. Though not as direct an indicator, changes in the college–aged population (18–24 year olds) also can affect enrollment demand, as more than 90 percent of UC undergraduates and about 80 percent of CSU undergraduates are in this age group.

College Participation Rates Another Factor in Gauging Enrollment Demand. For any subgroup (for example, high school graduates), the percentage of individuals who are enrolled in college is that subgroup’s college participation rate. Other factors remaining constant, if participation rates increase (or decrease), then enrollment demand increases (or decreases). Participation rates can change due to a number of factors, including student fee levels, availability of financial aid, state and institutional efforts to promote college going, and the availability and attractiveness of other postsecondary and employment options.

Actual Enrollment Levels Affected by Available Funding. Though the demand for enrollment might change due to population growth or increases in college participation, actual enrollment at each segment depends heavily on the availability of funding. To align with their annual budgets, UC and CSU actively “manage” their enrollment levels. Some of the strategies the university systems use to manage enrollment include the changing of application deadlines (shortening them to reduce enrollment, lengthening them to increase enrollment) and referring students to campuses where they did not apply (referring more students to reduce enrollment, referring fewer to increase enrollment).

Current Enrollment

UC Currently Enrolls 248,000 Students at Ten Campuses. Nine UC campuses enroll both resident and nonresident, undergraduate and graduate students and offer a broad array of academic programs. A tenth campus in San Francisco enrolls only graduate students in the health sciences. As Figure 2 shows, UC campuses vary in size. In 2015–16, five UC campuses enrolled more than 30,000 students, three enrolled between 10,000 and 30,000 students, and two enrolled fewer than 10,000 students. With the exception of San Francisco, all campuses enroll more undergraduate than graduate students, with graduate enrollment varying from one–quarter of total enrollment (at Berkeley and Los Angeles) to less than one–tenth (at Santa Cruz and Merced).

CSU Enrolls 394,000 Students at 23 Campuses. All CSU campuses enroll resident and nonresident, undergraduate and graduate students, and almost all campuses offer a broad array of academic programs. The exception is the Maritime Academy, which focuses solely on maritime professions. Several campuses, most notably San Diego, also offer joint doctoral programs with UC, and a few recently have begun running a small number of independent doctoral programs. Graduate enrollment at each campus ranges from 3 percent to 16 percent of total enrollment. CSU campuses tend to be smaller than UC campuses, but significant variation exists across the CSU system. As Figure 2 shows, four campuses enroll more than 30,000 students, five campuses enroll between 20,000 and 30,000 students, seven campuses enroll between 10,000 and 20,000 students, and seven campuses enroll fewer than 10,000 students.

CSU Campuses Also Operate Off–Campus Centers Serving Undergraduates. At CSU only, campuses have established a number of off–campus sites that provide undergraduate instruction. These centers provide commuting undergraduate students with opportunities to take some or all of their coursework at a nearby center instead of the main campus. Several of CSU’s most recently constructed campuses converted or replaced former off–campus centers. The nearby box provides further information on CSU’s off–campus centers serving undergraduates.

Capacity

Two Aspects of Enrollment Capacity. First, campuses can accommodate a certain number of students based on the facilities that they currently operate (current capacity). Second, campuses typically can accommodate more students by constructing additional facilities on their existing sites (planned capacity). We discuss both concepts below.

Current Capacity Determined by Facility Use Guidelines. For any amount of facility space, the number of students that can be served depends on how extensively the buildings are used. The Legislature established guidelines in the 1970s for how often instructional space (classrooms and teaching laboratories) should be used. Both UC and CSU report to the Legislature biennially comparing their current facility use to these legislative guidelines. The Legislature has periodically reviewed and reaffirmed these guidelines, though UC consistently has maintained they set too high a standard.

Use Guidelines Comprised of Three Components. These components are: (1) how often rooms are available for use, (2) how often rooms are actually used, and (3) how often seats in a room are filled. Figure 3 shows the guidelines for classrooms and teaching laboratories. Classrooms are to be available for use from Monday to Friday, 8 am to 10 pm (70 hours per week) and actually used 75 percent of that time (53 hours per week). About two–thirds of classroom seats are to be filled throughout the week (35 seat hours per week). Teaching laboratories have lower expectations regarding seat hours per week. The guidelines do not set use expectations for non–instructional facilities, such as faculty offices or research.

Separate Use Guidelines Exist for Summer Term. Higher education institutions traditionally operate instructional programs during the fall through spring, with significantly fewer programs offered during the summer. The Legislature in the past has sought to increase the use of facilities during the summer to accommodate more students. Chapter 386 of 2009 (AB 1182, Brownley) established the state’s most recent expectations regarding summer enrollment at UC and CSU. At UC, summer enrollment is to be 40 percent of fall enrollment. For CSU campuses in urban areas, the expectation is the same. For CSU campuses in rural settings, summer enrollment is to be 25 percent of fall enrollment.

Planned Capacity Determined by Campus Land Use Plans. Both UC and CSU require their campuses to develop land use plans that guide their physical development as their enrollment grows. The university systems use different names for their campus plans. UC refers to these documents as long–range development plans and CSU refers to them as physical master plans. Though the names differ, the processes for formulating these plans are similar, including an environmental impact review and final approval by each system’s governing board. The campus plans show existing and anticipated facilities necessary to accommodate a specified enrollment level in the fall through spring terms over the next five to ten years. Though campus physical plans contain an upper limit (or planned capacity) on campus growth for this five to ten–year period, new growth limits can be established as the plans are renewed.

No Agreed Upon Optimal Campus Size. Little consensus exists on the ideal enrollment level and physical size of a campus. Existing UC and CSU campuses vary notably in enrollment. Moreover, even the largest UC and CSU campuses are significantly smaller than certain public university campuses in other states. For example, Ohio State University serves about 57,000 students—nearly one and a half times the largest UC or CSU campus. Existing UC and CSU campuses also vary notably in their footprints. For example, despite enrolling roughly the same number of students, CSU’s Northridge campus occupies about 30 percent more acreage than its San Diego campus. Though external constraints (such as environmental and community factors) exist for all campuses, these constraints typically can be overcome with creativity, compromise, and monetary contributions.

Back to the Top

Findings

This section describes several key components of data that Chapter 22 required us to review. As we were required to examine county–level data, we provide most of this data in the appendix, with a few summary figures provided below. For historical trends, we provide most data going back to 2000–01.

College Preparation

More High School Students Completing A–G Than Are Eligible for Freshman Admission. As Figure 4 shows, 43 percent of public high school graduates completed A–G coursework in 2014–15. This exceeds the share of public high school graduates from which UC and CSU are to draw under the Master Plan. The share of public high school students completing A–G coursework hovered at about 35 percent during the first half of the 2000s, but increased steadily beginning in 2007–08. This recent increase could be due to heightened interest in attending college and more focus on preparing students for college, with some high schools now requiring students to complete A–G coursework in order to earn a high school diploma.

Significant Regional Variation in Share of Students Completing A–G Coursework. A–G completion rates by county range from a high of 61 percent in Marin to a low of 11 percent in Inyo. Generally, coastal counties in the Bay Area and Southern California have higher rates than the statewide average, whereas less populous and inland counties have lower rates. Various factors could explain these regional differences. For example, research suggests that parental income is associated with student success in school, and regions with lower completion rates tend to have lower average household incomes. Some counties also have higher rates because their high schools more commonly require A–G completion as part of their graduation requirements.

Many Students Completing A–G Coursework Deemed Not College Ready in Certain Subjects. In 2015, 40 percent of entering CSU freshmen were not proficient in math or English, while 19 percent of entering UC freshmen were not proficient in writing. Remediation rates have improved at both systems over the last 15 years, decreasing from highs of 65 percent at CSU and 28 percent at UC. These declines likely reflect a combination of improved instruction at secondary schools and changes in the university systems’ remediation policies. As an example of the latter, CSU now allows high school students to determine if they are college ready prior to enrolling in their senior year. If not college ready, high school students can enroll in appropriate coursework during their senior year, with the goal of demonstrating college readiness prior to enrolling at CSU.

Number of Transfer–Prepared Students Increasing Statewide. Community colleges track the number of “transfer–prepared” students who have completed 60 transferable units. Since 2000–01, the number of these students has increased nearly every year. In 2014–15, 157,760 students completed 60 transferable units, a 67 percent increase over the 2000–01 level.

Regional Variations in Number of Transfer–Prepared Students Correspond to Differences in Overall CCC Enrollment. Transfer–prepared students are heavily concentrated in coastal counties, particularly in Southern California. These regions also have the greatest concentration of CCC enrollment. By contrast, regions in more rural areas of the state tend to have fewer transfer–prepared students, as well as fewer CCC students overall.

Applications, Admissions, and Enrollment

More Students Applying for Freshman Admission Than Are Eligible Under Master Plan. In 2015, 21 percent of high school graduates applied to UC for freshman admission and 41 percent applied to CSU. This means that applicants notably exceed UC’s and CSU’s respective freshman eligibility pools.

UC and CSU Likely Admitting More Freshmen Than Called for Under Master Plan. In 2015, 13 percent of high school graduates were admitted to UC and 30 percent to CSU. Because some eligible students do not apply to UC and CSU, the university systems are drawing from even larger pools of students than these percentages suggest, with both systems very likely exceeding their Master Plan freshman eligibility targets.

UC Admitting All Eligible Transfer Applicants, CSU Denying Admission to Some Applicants. UC reports that it admits all eligible transfer applicants. CSU, by contrast, reports denying admission to about 11,000 eligible transfer students. Specifically, 12 CSU campuses report denying admission to eligible transfer students. Most of these denied students applied to a campus that was outside their local area.

About Half of Californians Admitted to UC and CSU as Freshmen Choose to Enroll. As of 2015, 54 percent of California high school students admitted to UC as freshmen decided to enroll, while the comparable figure for CSU was 45 percent. Both rates have been steady in recent years, although both are lower as compared to 2000 (59 percent at UC and 56 percent at CSU). Transfer rates (76 percent at UC and 74 percent at CSU) are much higher than the systems’ respective freshman rates.

Enrollment at Both UC and CSU Has Increased Over Last Decade. Compared to their 2006–07 levels, resident undergraduate enrollment in 2015–16 was about 12,000 students (7 percent) higher at UC and about 44,000 students (15 percent) higher at CSU. Resident undergraduate enrollment at both systems likely will increase further in 2016–17, as the annual state budget acts established enrollment growth targets.

Enrollment Has Declined at CSU Off–Campus Centers. Enrollment at CSU’s centers has fluctuated more than enrollment at its main campuses, with significant increases sometimes followed by significant decreases. In the early 2000s, enrollment steadily increased, nearly doubling prior to the start of the most recent recession. The establishment of two new centers during this time—Antelope Valley and Canada College—largely account for this increase. Enrollment subsequently declined during and after the recession. Several campus leaders indicated to us that they reduced enrollment at their centers to consolidate enrollment at their main campuses and reduce administrative costs. Total enrollment at the centers was 2,166 students (37 percent) higher in 2014–15 than 2000–01.

Enrollment Demand

Number of Public High School Graduates Has Steadily Increased. In 2014–15, nearly 427,000 students graduated from a public high school in California, an increase of about 110,800 students (35 percent) over the 2000–01 level. More than half of this increase came from the state’s southern counties (Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside), which also comprise more than half of the state’s high school graduates.

Freshman College Participation Rates Relatively Steady at UC and CSU. Figure 5 shows the percent of California high school graduates enrolling in UC and CSU within one year of graduation. Between 2000 and 2014, participation rates were relatively stable at UC, hovering around 8 percent, while rates increased at CSU from 10 percent to 13 percent. During this time, we estimate total participation in four–year institutions (including in–state private and out–of–state institutions) increased from 28 percent to 34 percent. (Calculating a comparable participation rate for transfer students is more difficult because not all community college students intend to transfer.)

Freshman College Participation Rates Vary by Region. San Francisco sends the highest percent of its high school graduates to UC and CSU as freshmen, with the county sending about 20 percent of its graduates to each system. For UC, Bay Area counties tend to have the highest participation, whereas the Central Valley and northern counties have the lowest. For CSU, the trend is similar, but its participation rates are higher than UC’s rates for several Central Valley counties, including Fresno and Stanislaus.

Educational Attainment

California’s Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Slightly Above National Average. In 2014, 32 percent of adult Californians had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 30 percent of adults nationally. Educational attainment in California and the nation has slightly increased over the past decade. In 2005, 30 percent of adult Californians and 27 percent of adults nationwide had a bachelor’s degree or higher. California’s attainment rate ranked 14th among states in 2014, one spot below its 2005 ranking.

California’s Bachelor’s Degree Attainment Varies by Region. Regional variation in educational attainment is similar to variation in college preparation and participation, with counties in the Bay Area and Southern California generally at or above the state average and Central Valley and Northern California areas below.

Capacity

Use of Current UC and CSU Space Below Legislative Guidelines. The university systems report biennially to the Legislature on the number of hours students sit in class (known as student contact hours) compared to the legislative use guidelines. Both systems report classroom use below the guidelines (82 percent at UC and 89 percent at CSU) but teaching laboratory use above the guidelines (103 percent at UC and 105 percent at CSU). Because the vast majority of instruction occurs in classrooms, overall use of instructional space relative to the legislative guidelines is 84 percent at UC and 90 percent at CSU. (Our figures reflect the most recent facility use data available from each segment—fall 2014 for UC and fall 2015 for CSU.)

Both Systems Assert They Are Much Closer to Current Capacity. . . Though their reports on classroom and laboratory space show UC and CSU below the legislative guidelines, both systems assert they are much closer to capacity after factoring in the use of other space. Most notably, UC asserts that its campuses use research space to teach undergraduate courses. CSU asserts that its campuses teach courses in spaces such as faculty offices and conference rooms when classrooms or laboratories are occupied during peak hours or in poor condition.

. . . But Unable to Fully Substantiate Claim. UC was unable to quantify the amount of undergraduate instruction provided in research space or the capacity of that type of space. CSU, by contrast, was able to provide the number of students taught in other types of space besides classrooms and teaching labs. CSU estimates that it would be at 99 percent of capacity had these students been taught in classrooms and teaching labs. CSU, however, was unable to provide data on the amount of other space (such as faculty offices and conference rooms) currently being used for instruction.

Current Facility Use Below Summer Guidelines at Both Systems. In summer of 2015, UC enrolled about 20 percent of fall enrollment and CSU enrolled 2.1 percent of fall enrollment. At UC, summer use ranges from 26 percent at Los Angeles to 13 percent at Santa Cruz. At CSU, only two campuses (Maritime Academy and Bakersfield) had summer enrollment in excess of 10 percent of their fall enrollment.

CSU Off–Campus Centers Have Low Facility Use Year Round. CSU tracks the use of its facilities at its four state–owned off–campus centers (Concord, Palm Desert, Calexico, and Stockton). These sites have the lowest facility use in the CSU system, far lower than most CSU campuses. Because these centers are small relative to CSU’s main campuses, increasing their use would have a small effect on CSU’s overall capacity. Specifically, the centers could accommodate a total of around 3,500 additional students by increasing use of their existing facilities.

Both UC and CSU Have Substantial Room to Grow Under Their Long–Range Plans. In addition to reporting use of their existing facilities, both systems report their planned capacity under campuses’ long–range plans. Whereas UC indicates its campuses use their own facility guidelines when determining planned capacity, CSU estimates its planned capacity based on legislative guidelines. Using UC’s long–range plans, five UC campuses are below planned capacity. These five campuses could accommodate about 32,000 additional students, with more than half of these students accommodated at the Merced campus. (According to their long–range plans, the Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, and San Diego campuses already have exceeded their planned capacity by a combined 12,000 students.) At CSU, every campus has room to grow under their master plans, with the system able to accommodate a total of about 173,000 additional students (including about 1,000 students in state–owned off–campus centers). Whereas San Luis Obispo is very close to its planned capacity (with room for fewer than 100 additional students), six campuses have substantial remaining capacity (with room for more than 10,000 additional students).

Back to the Top

Assessment

This section provides our analysis of whether a new UC or CSU campus is warranted at this time. We begin by describing the regions we use for our CSU analysis. We then provide enrollment projections for each university system and assess the capacity of each system to accommodate the projected growth.

CSU Regions

Analysis Sensitive to How CSU Regions Are Defined. As noted earlier, the state has never formalized CSU regions in state law, and in the past the state has used different regional breakdowns when evaluating whether to construct new CSU campuses. Various regional breakdowns could be viewed as reasonable, with the different approaches having distinct advantages and disadvantages. If we were to divide the CSU system into a few large regions, each region would have more campuses for accommodating enrollment growth, but more students would be located relatively far away from their local campuses. Alternatively, if we were to assume many small regions, more students would be located close to their local campus but those regions would have fewer campuses for accommodating enrollment growth. The exact regions selected could affect whether a new campus is deemed warranted.

Analysis Assumes 11 CSU Regions. In selecting regions for our analysis, we looked for existing regional breakdowns already used for educational purposes that appeared, at a minimum, to take into account both population density and geographic continuity. We settled on using 11 regions corresponding to the California County Superintendents Educational Services Association regions. The state has used this 11–region breakdown for various educational planning and service delivery purposes. As Figure 6 shows, the 11 regions appear to balance population density and geographic continuity reasonably well, as evident from the geographically smaller regions in highly populated areas (such as Los Angeles county) and geographically larger regions in less concentrated areas (such as Northern California and the Inland Empire). Though we believe using this set of regions provides one reasonable approach for our analysis of CSU enrollment demand and capacity, we analyze two other regional approaches in a box at the end of the report.