Analysis of the 2004-05 Budget Bill Legislative Analyst's Office February 2004

Intersegmental: K-14 Outreach Programs

The state maintains over 35 different K-14 outreach programs that focus on preparing students from disadvantaged backgrounds for college. The 2003-04 Budget Act included $233.3 million for such programs. As indicated in Figure 1, this amount consists of $94.2 million from the General Fund (non-Proposition 98), $50.7 million in Proposition 98 funds, and $88.4 million in federal and other funds. Of the over 35 programs, the University of California (UC) administers 23 programs and the California State University (CSU) administers 5 programs. The California Community Colleges (CCC), Student Aid Commission, and the State Department of Education (SDE) administer the remaining programs. Figure 1 shows the amount of funding each of the agencies received for outreach in the enacted 2003-04 budget and the Governor's proposed revision of the 2003-04 budget. It also shows the amount proposed in the Governor's budget for 2004-05.

Governor Proposes Outreach Reductions

The Governor's budget proposes to reduce funding for K-14 outreach programs in both the current year and budget year, as discussed below.

Current-Year Proposal. For 2003-04, the Governor proposes to reduce General Fund support for outreach by $12.2 million (or 38 percent) at UC and $12.5 million (or 24 percent) at CSU. The Governor has proposed to make these reductions pursuant to Section 27.00 of the 2003-04 Budget Act. Under the Governor's proposal, the segments would have full discretion in allocating the reductions across their various programs. However, the administration indicates that funding for CSU's Educational Opportunity (EOP) financial aid grants would not be affected by these mid-year reductions.

Budget-Year Proposal. For 2004-05, the Governor's budget expands the proposed mid-year reductions to UC and CSU outreach programs. Specifically, the budget reduces outreach funding for UC by an additional $21.1 million (for a total of $33.3 million over the two-year period) and for CSU by an additional $39.5 million (for a total of $52 million over the two-year period). (We note that the Governor's budget proposes to reduce UC's General Fund outreach budget in 2004-05 by an amount greater than the revised current-year funding level.) These actions would eliminate all General Fund support for UC and CSU outreach programs, including EOP financial aid grants at CSU. (We discuss the elimination of EOP financial aid grants in the "Financial Aid" section of this chapter.)

The Governor's budget for 2004-05 also eliminates funding for the Academic Improvement and Achievement Act , which is an outreach program administered by SDE. This reduction would result in General Fund (Proposition 98) savings of $5 million. The proposed budget also reduces outreach funding for CCC by $1 million (Proposition 98), but does not propose any outreach funding adjustments for the Student Aid Commission.

In this section, we (1) discuss the definition of outreach, (2) provide an historical review of outreach programs and funding, (3) assess current outreach efforts, and (4) present recommendations for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the state's overall outreach strategy.

What Is Outreach?

In general, outreach refers to a variety of activities aimed at helping students from disadvantaged backgrounds enroll in college for either an undergraduate or graduate education. However, the term outreach can take on many different meanings depending on the context of the discussion. This often makes it difficult to clearly define the state's outreach efforts. For example, in recent years UC and CSU have repeatedly changed their definition of outreach, and have reclassified which programs fall under their definition. In our view, outreach efforts seek to address three basic obstacles that can restrict students' access to higher education: (1) inadequate academic preparation, (2) lack of information concerning the accessibility and purposes of college education, and (3) lack of information on and assistance with financial aid.

The state has long supported K-14 outreach programs that focus on preparing disadvantaged students for college. For example, UC's Early Academic Outreach Program (EAOP) and the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) program have been in existence for over 25 years. The Puente Project, a joint program cosponsored between UC and CCC, has been in operation for over 20 years. On the other hand, some outreach programs are relatively new, and many programs have expanded their scope in recent years. This was made possible by significant increases in state outreach funding from 1998-99 through 2001-02.

Outreach Programs Rapidly Expanded in Late 1990s

UC Outreach. In 1995, the UC Board of Regents approved SP-1, a policy that prohibited campuses from using race, religion, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as criteria in granting admission. In 1996-97, UC began a major initiative to improve and expand outreach efforts at the university. As part of this new effort, the Regents established an Outreach Task Force (OTF). The OTF proposed a comprehensive plan, which the Regents adopted in 1997, to help disadvantaged students become aware of and prepare for higher education. The plan generally called for the university to improve its partnerships with K-12 schools, expand student academic development programs, and increase efforts to encourage students to pursue a higher education.

In order to implement this outreach strategy, the state provided UC with substantial General Fund augmentations to its K-14 outreach budget. Prior to the implementation of the OTF strategy, UC spent approximately $24 million in General Fund support on systemwide K-14 outreach in 1997-98. The majority of this money supported K-14 student academic programs and informational outreach and recruitment. In 1998-99, UC's K-14 outreach budget received a major General Fund augmentation of about $40 million—almost tripling its General Fund outreach budget to $64 million. (The university also received significant additional funding from the federal government.) The state augmented UC's outreach budget again by about $10 million in 1999-00 and another $10 million in 2000-01. The above augmentations allowed UC to expand its student academic development programs and to implement a number of new initiatives which broadened the scope of K-14 outreach.

CSU Outreach. During this same period, the state also increased funding for CSU's outreach programs. In 1999-00, CSU's General Fund support for outreach grew by about $14 million (36 percent), increasing from about $39 million to $53 million. This augmentation was to expand programs aimed at increasing the number of K-12 students from diverse backgrounds that become eligible and prepared for CSU admission. The state augmented CSU's outreach budget again in 2000-01 by $6 million.

Other Outreach Programs. Although the majority of the state's outreach funding has been directed to UC and CSU, additional state funding has also been provided to support outreach programs administered by the Student Aid Commission and SDE. Figure 2 summarizes spending on the state's major outreach programs from 1997-98 through the enacted 2003-04 budget.

As shown in Figure 2, the 2003-04 Budget Act included $233.3 million for various K-14 outreach programs from all fund sources—including General Fund, federal, and other funds. This is about two and one-half times as much (or about $140 million more) than the amount provided in 1997-98 (the year prior to the rapid expansion of the state's outreach efforts). Specifically, the enacted budget included General Fund spending on outreach of about $145 million. This is an increase of $80.4 million, or 125 per cent, from the 1997-98 funding level. We note that General Fund support for outreach programs peaked in 2000-01, but has fallen in recent years.

Funding for Some Outreach Programs Recently Declined

As indicated in Figure 2, General Fund support for some outreach programs has declined in the past two years. For example, UC received a total General Fund reduction of $51 million over the two-year period from 2001-02 to the enacted 2003-04 budget. However, the impact of these funding reductions on the quality and magnitude of UC's outreach efforts in the current year has been minimal. This is because the university chose to make reductions in other program areas to essentially offset the outreach reductions contained in the enacted 2003-04 budget. In other words, UC did not make most of the outreach reductions assumed in the 2003-04 Budget Act.

Funding for outreach programs at CSU has also declined in the past year, from $64.6 million in 2002-03 to $52 million in 2003-04. In response to this reduction, CSU restructured and consolidated many of its outreach programs in order to more effectively serve students with fewer fiscal resources.

Even with these various reductions, the enacted 2003-04 budget still includes more than twice the General Fund support for all state outreach programs than was provided in 1997-98. We also note that CCC received a $38 million General Fund (Proposition 98) augmentation in their financial aid outreach budget for the current year. (We discuss this particular augmentation in more detail later in this analysis.)

LAO Assessment of Current Outreach Efforts

Given recent programmatic and funding level changes in the state's outreach programs, we believe the Legislature should revisit and assess the state's overall outreach strategy. This would allow the Legislature to find ways to reform and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its K-14 outreach programs. Such a review is particularly important at this time because the Governor's budget proposes to eliminate all General Fund support for outreach at UC and CSU.

Based on our assessment of the state's current outreach efforts, we have developed a series of principles that we believe can guide the Legislature in improving its outreach efforts. Figure 3 outlines the principles, which we discuss in further detail below. 

Focus Outreach Efforts Where They Are Most Needed

As previously discussed, the scope of outreach has expanded in recent years to include many different types of programs and activities. Currently, there are four major categories of activities that these programs perform:

• Recruitment and Dissemination of Information. Some high school students do not have a full understanding of the value a college degree can provide them, or are not familiar with the state's higher education institutions. Some students also may not be familiar with college admissions requirements and thus might not take the classes or maintain the grades required for admission. Students may also not be aware of financial aid opportunities and thus incorrectly conclude that they cannot afford to attend college. To address this, recruitment and informational activities encourage students to pursue higher education and make them aware of the various requirements for financial aid and admission to postsecondary institutions.
• Academic Preparation. Some students need additional assistance to meet college admissions requirements and prepare for college-level courses. In order to help these students, some outreach programs offer a variety of academic development activities. These include student advising and course planning, SAT test preparation, personal statement workshops, academic enrichment courses, and tutoring. Activities take place at both college campuses and K-12 schools.
• Yield Activities. Some outreach programs seek to improve the "yield" (the rate at which admitted students actually enroll) of qualified underrepresented students attending UC and CSU. Although yield activities primarily focus on encouraging admitted students to actually enroll at the campus, they can also take the form of persuading eligible students to select particular segments or campuses instead of others. Several graduate and professional school programs also conduct yield activities, including hosting admitted applicants for campus visits, tours, and receptions.
• Research and Evaluation. Some outreach efforts do not necessarily provide direct services to students, but instead involve the research of educational issues in the state. For example, UC's All Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity (ACCORD) program supports research that examines access to higher education by disadvantaged students. Outreach funding is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of individual programs, in order to measure progress and improve service delivery.

Given the state's fiscal constraints, we believe the state should focus its outreach funding on activities that promote the Legislature's highest priorities. As a result, the state should (1) shift funding away from programs that do not provide direct services to students and (2) ensure that resources are first provided to students most in need of assistance.

Eliminate Funding for Programs That Do Not Serve Students. As previously mentioned, UC currently uses state funds to support the ACCORD program and the Community Partnerships program, which provide research grants to faculty to study educational equity issues. We believe that these two programs are of a lower priority compared to those programs that directly help students prepare for higher education. Moreover, the ACCORD and Community Partnerships programs could be supported with funding in UC's research budget. The Governor's budget proposes providing over $200 million in General Fund support for research. To the extent the university considers outreach-related research a high priority, it could fund such research by reallocating funds within its substantial research budget. We also note that individuals at other universities and organizations may already be conducting similar research on educational disparities.

Redirect Resources to Students Most in Need of Assistance. Although not a large source of outreach costs, UC and CSU's yield activities encourage already admitted underrepresented students to enroll at a particular campus. This approach may inadvertently work against the state's outreach efforts. Rather than increasing preparedness or awareness among disadvantaged students, yield-focused efforts typically work to convince already qualified or eligible students to choose a UC or CSU campus over some other higher education institution. For example, UC campuses may use outreach resources to compete for students, trying to convince potential students to choose a particular campus or attend UC rather than CSU or a private institution. To the extent these students have already been admitted to a university, they already have been provided an opportunity to participate in higher education. We believe the state's limited resources should be focused on increasing the number of students that are eligible for higher education, rather than convincing already qualified students to choose one institution over another.

Minimize Program Duplication Within Outreach

Figure 4 summarizes the goals and services of selected K-14 outreach programs funded by the state. Though not a comprehensive listing of the over 35 different programs, our list includes the major programs by each state agency. As the figure shows, many programs have overlapping goals and services. For example, while slightly different in academic focus, EAOP, MESA, and the Puente Project all share a common goal of increasing UC eligibility among high school graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds. In their efforts to achieve this shared goal, all three programs offer academic advising, informational outreach, SAT preparation, and financial aid counseling. Other outreach programs also offset similar services and may compete with one another for the same students.

As indicated in Figure 4, many outreach programs help students prepare for college entrance examinations (such as the SAT). For example, many UC outreach programs include a test preparation service component. In addition to these programs, UC administers a program that focuses solely on improving testing rates and performance. In our opinion, such program duplication is inefficient and wastes valuable outreach resources. Instead, the different programs could coordinate with one another and share resources and expertise by delivering each type of service (such as test preparation) through one designated program. Minimizing program duplication and overlap would create greater efficiencies and effectiveness in the state's outreach efforts.

Specify Clear Program Goals That Directly Link With Services Provided

Over the past few years, the Legislature has sought to evaluate how well outreach programs prepared disadvantaged students for college. Partly in response to legislative direction, UC has spent millions of dollars evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach programs. In summer 2002, the university established the Strategic Review Panel on Educational Outreach. The purpose of this panel was to (1) assess the effectiveness of UC's outreach programs, (2) define desirable changes to the university's overall outreach plan, (3) set reasonable short-term and long-term goals for the university in pursuing its outreach agenda, and (4) recommend a new working alliance with the state's K-12 educational bodies and the community colleges. In February 2003, the panel released a final report that summarizes its findings.

Evidence of Effectiveness Is Elusive. The panel's report indicated among other things that the number of EAOP, MESA, and Puente Project participants eligible for UC admission upon graduation has increased since 1998-99. However, it is unclear from the report whether this increase results from programs simply serving more students. The report also notes that the proportion of all newly enrolled freshmen from disadvantaged backgrounds has increased from 15.5 percent in 1998 to 17.8 percent in 2002. However, as the panel acknowledged, the cause and effect relationship between outreach efforts and increased underrepresented enrollment cannot be conclusively demonstrated. The report recognizes that "it is difficult to specify the magnitude of change because of the many influences and events in student lives that affect this behavior." For instance, other K-12 education reforms (such as supplemental instruction) also could have contributed to the increase in underrepresented student enrollments.

Our preliminary review of CSU and other UC outreach program evaluations also found little conclusive evidence regarding program effectiveness. This is not to say that outreach programs are ineffective in helping disadvantaged students enroll in college. Rather, the data we have reviewed does not demonstrate whether students participating in outreach programs would have been eligible for college without these services. In addition, it is unclear whether the state's current outreach efforts are cost-effective in comparison to alternative approaches. For example, the UC Strategic Review Panel report states that "with a few important exceptions, UC evaluation activities have not established clear, quantitative causal relationships between program interventions and outcomes such as student achievement and college attendance."

Explicit Goals Would Facilitate Evaluation. In order to better facilitate evaluation and to permit the Legislature to direct resources to its priorities, each outreach program should have specific goals and well-formulated objectives for meeting those goals. Each program should further be directed to focus specific activities and services for achieving its objectives. Each type of outreach service provided to students should be designed to produce an expected outcome that directly links to a specific objective. In other words, activities funded under outreach should be explicitly directed at a particular outcome that helps disadvantaged students. Our assessment indicates that there could be a mismatch between the goals of some programs and the services they provide. We believe that directly linking specific program goals with available services would help the Legislature better understand the investments it is making in outreach and what the impact would be if it decided to reduce or increase its investments.

Make Better Use of Other Education Funding

In our review of the state's current outreach efforts, we found that some programs (1) receive duplicative funding for the same tasks and (2) offer services that are available through other K-12 education programs.

UC Charter School Already Receives K-12 Funds; Supplemental Funds Not Needed. The state currently provides $500,000 from the General Fund to UC's outreach budget for the Preuss Charter school, which is located on the San Diego campus. The state also provides the Preuss school with (1) general purpose funding that is provided to K-12 school districts, county offices of education, and other charter schools; (2) charter school block grant funding; and (3) funding from selected federal and state categorical programs. Like most charter schools in the state, the Preuss school has a specified mission and focus. For example, some charter schools may focus on math and science subjects, while others may center on fine arts. The purpose of the Preuss Charter School is to help disadvantaged students become eligible for admission to UC and other four-year universities.

Since the Pruess Charter School already receives K-12 funds like other charter schools, it is unclear why the school should receive additional state funding above this base amount to carry out its mission. If students at the Preuss Charter School need additional college preparation, many of them could participate in one of the many other state outreach programs.

Some Outreach Services Available Through Other Education Initiatives. Our analysis indicates that some outreach programs provide services that are similar to those provided by nonoutreach educational programs. In some instances, these other programs may be able to provide the services more efficiently. For example, the 2003-04 Budget Act provided funds to UC for its Links Technology initiative. Under this program, undergraduate college students provide learning support to K-12 students at local school sites after regular school hours. Although this type of activity has merit, the state currently supports many after-school programs. For example, the Governor's budget includes $121.6 million in Proposition 98 funds for the After School Education and Safety Program and $75.5 million in federal funds for federal 21^st Century Community Learning Centers. Moreover, Proposition 49, approved by the voters in November 2002, requires that future funding for the After School Education and Safety Program increase by up to $550 million. Absent funding for UC Links, local schools could continue to solicit the assistance of college students with these other after-school resources.

Similarly, some outreach programs provide professional development services to K-12 teachers. At the same time, the state provides over $300 million for several professional development programs that are not considered to be outreach programs. Better coordination between these professional development programs and outreach programs could achieve greater efficiencies.

Outreach Should Focus on Needs of K-12 Students

Our review suggests that local K-12 schools are in the best position to assess the academic and counseling needs of their students and provide the necessary services to address those needs. We have observed that outreach programs that actively involve school-site teachers, administrators, and districts in designing and structuring services are most likely to succeed. This is because teachers and staff at school sites interact with students almost daily, and therefore are familiar with local students, their families, and the community.

We believe, therefore, that K-12 schools should have significant control over how certain outreach services are provided to their students. However, we find that schools currently have very little control over outreach activities, since most of the state's outreach funding is provided to UC and CSU. This can lead to the problems discussed below.

Difficult to Coordinate Multiple Outreach Programs. The existence of so many different outreach programs makes it difficult for local school sites to keep track of available services. In addition, school administrators and teachers have the burden of trying to coordinate and integrate various outreach programs. The UC acknowledges this in its 2001 outreach status report: "The number and variety of these programs is such that many teachers and principals have reached a point of initiative fatigue, as managing these efforts (coordinating various outreach programs) can be a demanding job in and of itself."

Primary Focus on Higher Education Needs. Some outreach programs are designed to simply meet the needs of the higher education segments. For example, the goal of some UC outreach programs is to increase the number of disadvantaged high school graduates that are eligible for admission to UC (versus some other institution). The UC's Strategic Review Panel report acknowledges "many K-12 representatives do not feel engaged in the UC outreach enterprise because the University's efforts are focused on increasing the number of UC-eligible students." Moreover, some outreach services (like yield and recruitment) seek to direct students to a particular college campus. We believe that outreach should prepare students for higher education at any college.

Universities Maintain Considerable Control Over Outreach Efforts. Typically, the segments take an approach to outreach that prohibits local innovation and overlooks variation in schools and populations throughout the state. For example, the need for specific outreach services, whether it be college test preparation or tutoring assistance in math, varies widely among schools. However, the state's current outreach program and funding structure may not provide local schools with adequate flexibility to direct resources to local needs.

Monopoly Providers. Currently, the state's higher education segments essentially operate their programs as monopoly providers of outreach to K-12 schools. This arrangement reduces incentives for the segments to improve program quality or service delivery because they do not necessarily have to compete for schools' business. In addition, by keeping other outreach providers out of the market, the current structure limits the outreach services available to schools.

Difficult to Integrate Outreach With Other K-12 Education Reforms. According to UC's Strategic Review Panel report, "A fundamental disconnect exists between the efforts to reform K-12 and the University's efforts to ensure a diverse UC student body." We agree and believe that this is in part because K-12 schools have little control to incorporate outreach into their overall strategy to improve the educational outcomes of students. Greater flexibility and control would allow schools to better coordinate outreach with various state and federal compensatory education programs.

LAO Recommendations

The Governor's budget proposes to eliminate all state support for UC and CSU outreach programs. While we agree that the state's outreach services are in need of reform and restructuring, we believe the state should continue to advance the goal of outreach—expanding access to postsecondary education. With this goal in mind, we propose a different approach for funding and delivering outreach services. In developing our alternative proposal, we attempted to achieve the same level of General Fund savings as proposed by the Governor while still providing well-targeted outreach services for disadvantaged students. However, we recognize the Legislature has made outreach its priority in recent years and may wish to provide additional funding for this purpose.

Our alternative proposal would provide K-12 schools with greater flexibility and control over outreach funding and services. We also identify a small number of programs that we believe are most appropriate for UC and CSU to administer. More importantly, we believe that our proposal begins to address many of the problems associated with the current outreach program and funding structure. Specifically, we recommend:

• Establishing a College Preparation Block Grant targeted at K-12 schools with very low college participation rates. Schools could use these funds to contract with UC, CSU, or other providers for outreach services.
• Preserving selected outreach programs at UC and CSU by redirecting funds proposed by the Governor for a new program.

We discuss our proposals in detail below.

Establish College Preparation Block Grant For K-12 School Districts

We recommend the Legislature establish a College Preparation Block Grant targeted at K-12 schools with low college participation rates. We recommend redirecting $30 million from community college outreach to fund this block grant. In addition, we recommend the Legislature broaden the permissible uses of the remaining $7 million available for community college financial aid outreach, in order to provide the colleges greater flexibility in assisting disadvantaged students.

Earlier, we identified some of the problems associated with the current structure of the state's outreach programs and offered some guiding principles for improving its effectiveness and efficiency. For example, we noted that directing a majority of outreach funding to higher education institutions makes it difficult for K-12 schools to coordinate multiple programs and integrate outreach with other education reforms. While the current system of funding outreach programs through UC and CSU appears to be neither efficient nor effective, we believe it is important to maintain a base level of outreach services for disadvantaged students. We also believe that these services could be better delivered through school districts. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature create a College Preparation Block Grant for K-12 school districts, with funds allocated to districts with very low college participation rates.

The goal of our proposed College Preparation Block Grant is two-fold: (1) targeting limited resources to students most in need of additional state help to enroll in college and (2) facilitating local discretion to determine the best mix of outreach interventions. These interventions could include tutoring, academic advising, test preparation, and college application workshops. There is no one answer to helping disadvantaged students prepare for college, because the barriers to higher education vary from individual to individual and school to school. Our approach to outreach acknowledges this reality.

Under our proposal, school districts would have the flexibility to use outreach funds as part of an overall strategy to assist disadvantage students. This is because school districts would have broad latitude over the use of funds, selecting a service delivery model that best meets the needs of their students. Districts could implement their own programs, or could contract with UC, CSU, or whichever provider can best meet those needs. As a condition of receiving funds through the block grant, we propose requiring districts to submit a plan to SDE specifying the types of outreach services that will be provided and how these services will accomplish measurable objectives.

We acknowledge that our proposal would make significant changes to how the state currently provides outreach service. Consequently, the Legislature would have to address many implementation and transitional issues. For example, the Legislature would need to define eligibility for block grant funds and the role of SDE in allocating the proposed college preparation block grant. In addition, steps would need to be taken to assist local schools in coordinating with UC, CSU, and other outreach providers. We believe, however, providing these funds to districts will result over time in the improved delivery of outreach services.

Redirect Some Community College Outreach Funds To Proposed Block Grant

The Governor's budget provides a total of $43.2 million in General Fund support (Proposition 98) for outreach programs administered by CCC. This total includes $37 million for financial aid outreach, which is $1 million less than the $38 million augmentation provided in the 2003-04 Budget Act to CCC's financial aid outreach budget.

The new financial aid outreach funds are a substantial augmentation provided in the current year specifically to help mitigate a possible decline in enrollment associated with the current-year increase in community college student fees. The $38 million augmentation provided in the current year consists of (1) $3.8 million for a statewide media campaign to promote the availability of financial aid and (2) $34.2 million for counseling potential and current financial aid applicants. Per a requirement in the 2003-04 Budget Act, CCC provided the Legislature with a preliminary report in November 2003 regarding its use of these financial aid outreach funds. Some of the highlights from this report include:

• Statewide Media Campaign Has Not Started. At the time this Analysis was prepared, the Community Colleges Chancellor's Office was still in the process of selecting a media firm to develop and implement the financial aid media campaign. According to the report, "It is anticipated that the initial phase of the public campaign will target Spring 2004 enrollments."
• Many Colleges Planning for One-Time and Temporary Expenditures. The report discussed how the colleges planned to use the financial aid outreach funds. Many colleges intend to offer a variety of outreach activities to potential and current students. However, many planned expenditures were characterized as one time or temporary in nature. For example, the report notes that many campus administrators are unwilling to hire permanent staff, given the possibility that the funds may not be provided by the state in 2004-05. Many campuses also plan to use funds for hardware and software acquisitions, whose ongoing costs are less clear.

Although the $38 million financial aid outreach augmentation was intended to help students adjust and plan for the current-year student fee increases, the current academic year is more than half over and the community colleges have not used most of the funds. The Legislature's intent was to help students become aware of the fee increases and the availability of financial aid prior to paying the higher fee. We also noted above that many colleges plan to use their outreach funds for one-time or temporary expenditures. For these and other reasons identified below, we believe the current level of support for this program is not justified in the current fiscal environment, and that these funds could be put to better use. Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature redirect $30 million (of the $37 million proposed for the community colleges in 2004-05) to fund a College Preparation Block Grant for K-12 schools. (In other sections of this chapter, we recommend reductions to various K-14 budget proposals that together "free up" Proposition 98 funds. These freed-up funds could be redirected to increase outreach funding.)

Expand Uses of Remaining Community College Financial Aid Outreach Funds

In view of the Governor's budget proposal to eliminate all General Fund support for UC and CSU outreach programs (particularly those programs targeted at community college students), we recommend the Legislature broaden the permissible uses of the remaining $7 million for community college financial aid outreach. (This is based on our proposal to redirect the other $30 million of the $37 million total to K-12 school districts.) Specifically, we propose that the colleges be allowed to use the funds to provide counseling services to students interested in transferring to a four-year institution. This is because we believe that the community colleges are in a better position than UC or CSU to provide such services. Under our proposal, the colleges would still be able to provide financial aid outreach to help students with the proposed student fee increases for 2004-05. We note that our proposal would still result in a significant increase in the community college financial aid administration budget from its 2002-03 funding level—almost double the amount. In addition, the Governor's budget does provide the Student Aid Commission with about $16 million for financial aid outreach, including statewide media campaigns, to make all students aware of financial aid opportunities.

Preserve Selected UC and CSU Outreach Programs

We recommend the Legislature preserve selected outreach programs that the Governor proposes to eliminate at the University of California and the California State University. We recommend redirecting the $3.5 million proposed for dual admissions counseling to these programs, in order to better target limited resources at students most in need of college preparation assistance.

UC's ASSIST Program and Graduate and Professional School Outreach

Our review has identified several meritorious outreach programs that we believe are best administered by UC. One of these is UC's ASSIST program, which provides community college counselors and students with access to articulation agreements via the Internet at no charge to the student. The goal of ASSIST is to allow students to identify all community college courses that satisfy UC's and CSU's general education requirements, as well as specific requirements relating to certain majors (such as engineering) and specialized programs (such as nursing). Because ASSIST is the only complete statewide database that provides transfer information to community college students, we believe that the Legislature should redirect funds to preserve the program. This is especially important given the Legislature's priority to ensure access from community colleges to UC and CSU and the proposed dual admissions program.

Our review also found value in the academic enrichment activities that graduate and professional school outreach programs provide to students. Consistent with our suggested principles for improving outreach, we suggest the Legislature direct UC to develop clear and specific goals for these programs that link to services provided. Clear program goals will help the Legislature determine the effectiveness of these programs and whether future appropriations are warranted.

CSU's Early Assessment Program

In the current year, CSU consolidated many of its outreach programs into a new Early Assessment Program, in order to more effectively serve students with fewer fiscal resources. The purpose of this program is to improve high school students' proficiency in English and mathematics prior to entering CSU. This is especially important because CSU currently admits many students who are unprepared for college-level coursework and must take precollegiate (or "remedial") courses. In fall 2002, 49 percent of regularly admitted freshmen were unprepared for college-level writing and 37 percent were unprepared for college-level mathematics.

As part of the 2003-04 budget package, the Legislature adopted supplemental report language directing CSU to submit by December 1, 2005, a report evaluating the effectiveness of the Early Assessment Program. If the program is effective, it will help reduce the future costs associated with providing remedial courses at CSU and may increase the retention rates of unprepared students. For these reasons, we recommend the Legislature provide some support to the Early Assessment Program in 2004-05 and determine subsequent funding based on the university's evaluation findings.

Redirect Funds to Support Outreach

The Governor's budget for 2004-05 includes an augmentation of $3.5 million in General Fund support for UC and CSU to provide "appropriate" counseling services to students participating in the proposed dual admissions program. Specifically, the budget provides $1.6 million to UC and $1.9 million to CSU. Under the new dual admissions program, students who are eligible to attend UC or CSU directly from high school would be admitted to a specific university campus provided they first complete a transfer program at a community college. (The UC currently operates a similar program for students who are not eligible for UC admission as freshmen.)

As we discuss in the "Higher Education Admissions and Enrollment" section of this chapter, we believe that the Governor's proposal to encourage eligible students to enroll at community colleges for their lower division coursework has merit, especially given the state's fiscal constraints. However, we believe the $3.5 million proposed for UC and CSU counseling services for these dual admission students would be better directed to other outreach activities. Specifically:

• Target Those Not Yet Prepared for College. Under the Governor's proposal, the segments would receive about $500 for each student it redirects to a community college. These students are already eligible for admission to UC or CSU. Thus, these funds would essentially provide counseling services to students who are already prepared and qualified for college and who have already shown the motivation to apply. At the same time, however, the Governor's budget eliminates the universities' General Fund support for outreach services to students not yet prepared for college. We believe that the proposed $3.5 million should be targeted to disadvantaged students most in need of additional assistance.

In view of the above analysis, we recommend that the Legislature redirect the $3.5 million proposed for dual admissions counseling to preserve other, more critical outreach programs at UC and CSU. Specifically, we recommend redirecting (1) $1.6 million to UC's ASSIST program and academic enrichment services for potential graduate and professional school students and (2) $1.9 million to support CSU's Early Assessment Program. We note that both UC and CSU would still be able to provide additional outreach services using remaining nonstate funding, such as federal funds.