Docstoc

08-09 Strategic Planning Report

Document Sample
08-09 Strategic Planning Report Powered By Docstoc
					Irvine Valley College



   2006 - 2012 Strategic Plan

         Year Two – 2008-2009




Prepared by the Research and Planning Analyst
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEES                                  I

FOREWORD                                                      IV

STRATEGIC PLANNING MATRIX                                      4

SOCCCD GOALS                                                   7

IVC VISION                                                     8

IVC MISSION                                                    8

IVC GOALS                                                      8

DEFINITIONS                                                   12

Goals                                                         12

Objectives                                                    12

Planning Assumptions                                          12

Strategies                                                    12


A CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE STRATEGIC
PLANNING PROCESS (IVCSPP)                                     13

APPENDICES                                                    25
Appendix A: Summaries of Research Areas                       25

1. Research Area “Demographics”                               25


D-S-4-1                                                       37

2. Research Area “Economy and Employment”                     56

3. Research Area “Educational Trends”                         86

4. Research Area “Public Policies”                           136

5. Research Area “Social Trends”                             150

6. Research Area “Technology”                                164




IVCSPP                                                         2
7. Research Area “Institutional Effectiveness”                                                       188

Appendix B: IVC’s Planning Assumptions                                                               192

1. Research Area “Demographics”                                                                      192

2. Research Area “Economy and Employment”                                                            192

3. Research Area “Educational Trends”                                                                193

4. Research Area “Public Policies”                                                                   194

5. Research Area “Social Trends”                                                                     195

6. Research Area “Technology”                                                                        196

7. Planning Assumptions of 2008/2009 Strategic Planning Cycle                                        196

Appendix C: Strategic Planning Outcome Measures                                                      198

Appendix D: Strategic Planning Proposal Forms (SP 1 and SP 2) and Strategic Planning Proposal Process
(Draft)                                                                                               217

Appendix E: Final Resource Assessment Worksheet (RAW)                                                221

Appendix F: Irvine Valley College Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee:
Strategic Planning & College Budget Development Process                                              229

Appendix G: Irvine Valley College Program Review/Planning Process                                    231

Appendix H: Irvine Valley College Strategic Planning Process                                         234




IVCSPP                                                                                                 3
              Strategic Planning Matrix
                                                                                                                                                                                       IVC Vision
                                                                                                                                                                   The college maintains high educational standards as measured
                                           SOCCD Vision                                                                                            by student learning outcomes including dedicated to excellence and committed to meeting the
                                 To be an educational leader in a changing world.                                                                              current and future learning needs of the diverse communities it serves.



                                                                                                                                                                                     IVC Mission
                                       SOCCD Mission                                                                                                   Irvine Valley College is an institution of higher learning that seeks to deliver innovative
                                                                                                                                                  instruction and student services programs, provide opportunities for student success and enter
                     To provide a dynamic learning environment and diverse opportunities                                                                                        into dynamic community partnerships….
                      fostering student success and contributing to the global community.


                                                                                                                                                              IVC Institutional Student Learning Outcomes

                                                                                                                                                                College Strategic Plans
                           SOCCCD Goals                                                                                                                               IVC Strategic Planning Process (IVCSPP)
                                                                                                                                                                       Educational and Facilities Master Plan
1. Promote and support enrollment management, emphasizing online degrees and certificates; new academic and
career technical education programs; workforce development; and innovative instructional delivery modes.

                                                                                                                                                                 IVC Goals
2. Engage in systematic and integrated strategic and budget planning within the framework of regulatory compliance
and board approved basic aid guidelines.
3. Follow the Educational and Facilities Master Plan and address preventative maintenance and timely rehabilitation                                1. Meet the current and future learning needs of our diverse community. (Linked to District-wide
when making resource allocation decisions.                                                                                                          Goal # 9)
4. Develop the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) through educational and business partnerships with                                    2. Foster a college environment that is dedicated to attracting and supporting excellent faculty,
multiple sources of funding.
                                                                                                                                                   staff, and students. (Linked to District-wide Goals # 1, 5, 9)
5. Provide a safe and secure environment supportive of student learning.
                                                                                                                                                   3. Develop and implement curricula that enable students to transfer, obtain degrees and certificates,
6. Promote and strengthen institutional integrity, effectiveness, and accountability consistent with accreditation
                                                                                                                                                    improve basic skills, and pursue life-long learning. (Linked to District-wide Goal # 6)
standards.
7. Communicate the value of our services to stakeholders through increased community involvement and outreach.                                     4. Provide cultural experiences and activities that promote economic development and partnerships
8. Promote an environment to foster innovation and an entrepreneurial approach to resource and economic                                            with the community. (Linked to District-wide Goal # 8)
development                                                                                                                                        5. Focus our college processes on the central purpose of providing programs and services which
9. Recruit a diverse workforce of highly qualified employees and provide them with professional development and other                              educate students to think critically, prepare for career choices and academic pursuits, and act
opportunities to succeed                                                                                                                           responsibly
10 .Ensure that students, faculty, and staff are informed of and have access to online and in person services, programs,                           within a global community. (Linked to District-wide Goal # 10)
available resources, and policies.                                                                                                                 6. Expand and sustain instructional and administrative technologies while providing exemplary services
11. Promote a positive district-wide image through respectful interactions among faculty, staff, students, administrators,                          to ensure student success. (Linked to District-wide Goal # 1)
trustees and the community.                                                                                                                        7. Increase awareness of IVC as an institution of higher education that is dedicated to student
12. Support legislative efforts to sustain funding for community colleges, increase accessibility for students, and provide                         success and access. (Linked to District-wide Goal # 7)
regulatory relief.                                                                                                                                 8. Ensure institutional effectiveness through systematic assessment, intentional dialogue, and
13. Support the retention and success of all students, especially those with basic skills needs.                                                   continuous improvement. (Linked to District-wide Goals # 2, 6)
14.Work positively and collegially to resolve accreditation recommendations.                                                                       9. Leverage resources to implement the initiatives identified in the college’s strategic plan.
                                                                                                                                                   (Linked to District-wide Goal # 2)




                                                                                          IVC 2008-2009 Objectives and Strategies

           I:                   II:                     III:                        IV:                      V:                VI:            VII:                  VIII:                      IX:                          X:                          XI:
       To increase            Develop               Increase course           Increase student           Increase the          Increase      Update and          Expand the Early            Use college            Strengthen campus            Hire full-time
       alternative          programs to             completion rates            success and               number of           enrollment    implement the            College                  resources                 security and             faculty on a
       educational          meet student                  […]                    persistence             ESL students         in Lifelong      college’s            Program.                 efficiently.                emergency               regular and
         delivery                and                                               rates.                    […]               Learning     marketing and                                                              preparedness.             consistent basis
        systems              community                                                                                            […]        recruitment                                                                                         when fiscally
                              interests                                                                                                          plan.                                                                                           possible.
                                                    Strategies III.
              IVCSPP
       Strategies
          I.a-b
                                                         a-h                                             Strategies
                                                                                                            V.a-f
                                                                                                                                                                    Strategies
                                                                                                                                                                     VIII.a-b
                                                                                                                                                                                             Strategies
                                                                                                                                                                                               IX.a-d
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Strategies
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            X.a-c
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               4
                             Strategies                                          Strategies                                   Strategy       Strategies                                                                                              Strategy XI.a
                               II.a-c                                              IV.a-p                                      VI.a-c       VII.a-e
                                                                           IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE
                                              2009-10 STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE

                 July            August        September       October       November       December         January       February         March             April    May -Aug.


                               Data review & evaluation of
                                                                                                                                             Review of proposed
                                  last year's strategies                                                                                                               Executive
   SPOBDC




                                                                                                                                              departmental and
                                                                Approval of planning                                                                                    Council
                                                                                           Approval of new/updated strategies (RAWs).     categorical budgets. Final
              Review/Finalization of vision                   assumptions & objectives                                                                                  finalizes
                                                                                                                                           recommendations to the
              & mission statements & SP                                                                                                                                budgets.
                                                                                                                                              Executive Council.
                        goals.



                               Review of
 Committees




                                vision &       Development & updating of       Development & updating of strategies
    SP




                                mission         planning assumptions &       (RAWs) based on objectives approved by
                              statements               objectives                          SPOBDC
                              & SP goals.




                                                                             Development & updating of                    Review and completion of
 Schools,
 Offices*




                                                                            strategies (RAWs) based on                    budget worksheets, based
                                                                               objectives approved by                      on approved RAWs and
                                                                                      SPOBDC                                mandatory increases.


* Process to be initiated by the President, VPI or VPSS, as appropriate.



                                    STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE
                                FY 2007-08 (July 2007-June 2008)             FY 2008-09 (July 2008-June 2009)              FY 2009-10 (July 2009-June 2010)

                                                                                    Implementation of                             Implementation of
                                                                                   Objectives/Strategies                         Objectives/Strategies
                                                                                       for 2008-09                                   for 2009-10


                              Development of Objectives/Strategies          Development of Objectives/Strategies         Development of Objectives/Strategies
                                    and Budget for 2008-09                        and Budget for 2009-10                       and Budget for 2010-11




IVCSPP                                                                                                                                                                              5
                        IVC MISSION
 STRATEGIC PLANNING
    OVERSIGHT AND
BUDGED DEVELOPMENT
      COMMITTEE
                          LONG-TERM
      (SPOBDC) &        COLLEGE GOALS
 STRATEGIC PLANNING
(SP) COMMITTEE CHAIRS                           RESEARCH
                                                    (e.g.,
     SPOBDC
                         DEVELOPMENT           INSTITUTIONAL
ALL SP COMMITTEES             OF               EFFECTIVENESS
                           PLANNING             INDICATORS;
                         ASSUMPTIONS          SWOT ANALYSES;
                                                  CAMPUS
     SPOBDC
                                                 SURVEYS).
ALL SP COMMITTEES          DEVELOPMENT OF
                             OBJECTIVES

ALL SP COMMITTEES            DEVELOPMENT OF
                               STRATEGIES

     SPOBDC             BUDGET & RESOURCE PLANNING

  SP COMMITTEES
  WITH SPOBDC &
                         EVALUATION OF STRATEGIES, DEFINITON &
     COLLEGE                IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBSEQUENT
   IVCSPP                                                        6
   RESEARCHER                        STRATEGIES
 DISTRICT AND COLLEGE VISIONS, MISSIONS AND GOALS


SOCCCD Vision
    To be an educational leader in a changing world.

SOCCCD Mission
    To provide a dynamic learning environment and diverse opportunities fostering
    student success and contributing to the global community.

SOCCCD Goals
  1. Promote and support enrollment management, emphasizing online degrees and
     certificates; new academic and career technical education programs; workforce
     development; and innovative instructional delivery modes.

   2. Support the retention and success of all students, especially those with basic
      skills needs.

   3. Provide a safe and secure environment supportive of student learning.

   4. Engage in systematic and integrated strategic and budget planning within the
      framework of regulatory compliance and board approved basic aid guidelines.

   5. Follow the Educational and Facilities Master Plan and address preventative
      maintenance and timely rehabilitation when making resource allocation
      decisions.

   6. Develop the Advanced Technology and Education Park (ATEP) through
      educational and business partnerships with multiple sources of funding.

   7. Promote and strengthen institutional integrity, effectiveness, and accountability
      consistent with accreditation standards.

   8. Communicate the value of our services to stakeholders through increased
      community involvement and outreach.

   9. Promote an environment to foster innovation and an entrepreneurial approach to
      resource and economic development.

   10. Recruit a diverse workforce of highly qualified employees and provide them with
       professional development and other opportunities to succeed.

   11. Ensure that students, faculty, and staff are informed of and have access to online
       and in person services, programs, available resources, and policies.
   12. Promote a positive district-wide image through respectful interactions among
       faculty, staff, students, administrators, trustees and the community.

   13. Support legislative efforts to sustain funding for community colleges, increase
       accessibility for students, and provide regulatory relief.

   14. Work positively and collegially to resolve accreditation recommendations.



IVC Vision
      Irvine Valley College is an institution of higher learning that seeks to deliver
      innovative instruction and student services programs, provide opportunities for
      student success and enter into dynamic community partnerships. The college
      maintains high educational standards as measured by student learning outcomes
      including skills and knowledge gained.

IVC Mission
      Irvine Valley College is an accredited, comprehensive institution of higher
      education, dedicated to excellence and committed to meeting the current and
      future learning needs of the diverse communities it serves. As an educational
      institution within the South Orange County Community District, the college
      provides a broad range of programs and courses. Student learning outcomes,
      and student success are the measure of quality for all offerings.

      The college serves students seeking to transfer, enhance career skills, obtain a
      degree or certificate, or improve basic skills. The college also provides student
      support services, community education, opportunities for lifelong learning,
      cultural experiences, and activities promoting economic development and
      partnerships with the community. The central purpose of these programs and
      services is the education of students to think critically, prepare students for future
      career choices or academic pursuits,* and act responsibly within the global
      community.

      To best serve the needs of the diverse population and workforce, the college
      delivers its curriculum in a variety of traditional and distance learning methods. In
      this era of rapid change, the college commits itself to being at the forefront of
      instructional and administrative technologies while providing exemplary services
      to ensure student success.

IVC Goals
   1. Meet the current and future learning needs of our diverse community. (Linked to
      District-wide Goal 6, 9, 2)

   2. Foster a college environment that is dedicated to attracting and supporting
      excellent faculty, staff, and students. (Linked to District-wide Goals 1, 10)


IVCSPP                                                                                    8
  3. Develop and implement curricula that enable students to transfer, obtain degrees
     and certificates, improve basic skills, and pursue life-long learning. (Linked to
     District-wide Goals 1, 2)

  4. Provide cultural experiences and activities which promote economic development
     and partnerships with the community. (Linked to District-wide Goals 8, 9)

  5. Focus our college processes on the central purpose of providing programs and
     services which educate students to think critically, prepare for career choices and
     academic pursuits, and act responsibly within a global community. (Linked to
     District-wide Goals 1, 3, 11?, 2)

  6. Expand and sustain instructional and administrative technologies while providing
     exemplary services to ensure student success. (Linked to District-wide Goals 11,
     2)

  7. Increase awareness of IVC as an institution of higher education that is dedicated
     to student success and access. (Linked to District-wide Goals 8?, 2)

  8. Ensure institutional effectiveness through systematic assessment, intentional
     dialogue, and continuous improvement. (Linked to District-wide Goals 4?, 7, 14)

  9. Leverage resources to implement the initiatives identified in the college’s
     strategic plan. (Linked to District-wide Goals 4, 5)




IVCSPP                                                                                9
       INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES


Communication:
     Communicate effectively when speaking, writing, and presenting to a variety
       of audiences and with a variety of purposes.

         (ACCJC Accreditation Standards Equivalents:                  Oral    and    written
         communication; Interpersonal communication skills)

Critical Thinking, Problem Solving, and Information Access and Analysis:
        Engage in critical and creative thinking to solve problems, explore
          alternatives, and make decisions.
        Develop comprehensive, rational arguments for ethical positions and describe
          the implications for the individual and the larger society.
        Apply mathematical approaches and computational techniques to solve
          problems, to manipulate and interpret data, and to disseminate the data,
          methodology, analysis, and results.
        Apply the fundamentals of scientific inquiry to real-life and hypothetical
          situations.
        Use a variety of media, including computer resources, to access, organize,
          evaluate, synthesize, cite, and communicate that information.

         (ACCJC Accreditation Standards Equivalents:                Critical analysis/logical
         thinking; Ethical principles; Scientific and quantitative reasoning)

Global Awareness:
       Demonstrate and observe sensitive and respectful treatment of diverse
         groups and perspectives.
       Demonstrate an awareness of historical and contemporary global issues and
         events

         (ACCJC Accreditation Standards Equivalents: Historic sensitivity)

Aesthetic Awareness:
      Make use of a variety of critical methods to analyze, interpret, and evaluate
         works of literary, visual, and performing art.
      Identify and recognize opportunities to participate in the creative arts as an
         artist, performer or observer
      Recognize the historic and cultural role of the creative arts in forming human
         experience.

         (ACCJC Accreditation Standards Equivalents: Aesthetic sensitivity)




IVCSPP                                                                                    10
Personal, Professional and Civic Responsibilities:
      Identify and recognize opportunities to contribute to civic and environmental
         needs.
      Apply techniques that promote physical, mental and emotional well-being,
         self-management, maturity, and ethical decision-making.

         (ACCJC Accreditation Standards Equivalents: Civility; Civic responsibility;
         Political responsibilities; Social responsibility; Cultural diversity)




IVCSPP                                                                           11
                                  DEFINITIONS
The language of planning is replete with specialized terms. As you read through the rest
of this document it may help to refer to this set of definitions:


Goals
Goals are defined as all-encompassing statements about the general direction of the
college. Actions must be taken in order to reach Goals. Actions (identified as
Objectives and Strategies in the IVCSPP), must be evaluated to gauge Goal
accomplishment.


Objectives
Objectives are defined as methods for attaining IVC’s Goals. Good objectives are
S.M.A.R.T.: specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-related (Drucker,
1954). An Objective can be achieved through one or more Strategies.


Planning Assumptions
Within the context of research, Planning Assumptions are defined as interpretations of
the planning environment as they relate to IVC’s Goals. Planning Assumptions carry
policy implications that become challenges, issues, and targets to which the college
responds through Objectives.


Strategies
Strategies are defined as means for achieving a specific Objective. Strategies represent
projects or initiatives designed to reach Objectives and to attain Goal(s). Strategies
describe complex college functions involving multiple offices and/or departments.
Strategies are reviewed and revised yearly.

Many activities on campus are on-going. On-going activities are not documented in the
IVCSPP, because they are the result of previous planning efforts which have become
part of day-to-day operations. The IVCSPP highlights only new actions and Strategies.
Extending the hours of the Office of Admissions and Records is an example of an
activity that is not on-going.




IVCSPP                                                                               12
   A CHRONOLOGICAL OVERVIEW OF THE IRVINE VALLEY
    COLLEGE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS (IVCSPP)

The IVCSPP has guided the strategic direction of the college since August 2006. The
IVCSPP is based on research that specifically targets the following areas: (a) Academic
Planning/Facilities/Educational  Support/Technology Planning,          (b)   Institutional
Effectiveness, (c) Student Success/Access, (d) Resource and Budget Planning, and (e)
Enrollment Management. Research data is central to the IVCSPP decision- making
process.

The IVCSPP is driven by the following entities: the Strategic Planning Oversight and
Budget Development Committee and the five Strategic Planning Committees*. The
Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget Development Committee oversees the
IVCSPP. The Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget Development Committee
consists of the College President, the Vice President of Instruction, the Vice President
of Student Services, the Academic Senate President, the Director of Fiscal Services, a
CSEA Classified Management representative, two Academic Senate representatives,
the Classified Senate President, an ASIVC senator-at-large, and the Research and
Planning Analyst. Each Strategic Planning Committee is assigned to one of the five
areas. The committees consist of representatives representing all constituency groups
i.e., Academic Senate, Classified Managers, Classified Senate, CSEA, and ASIVC).

In fall 2007, the Strategic Planning Committees were charged with implementing the
2007/2008 Objectives and Strategies. During flex week in spring 2008, the chairs of the
Strategic Planning Committees gave oral updates on the 2007/2008 Objectives and
Strategies. Subsequently, the Research Analyst produced an evaluation report of the
Strategic Planning outcomes summarizing the oral presentations.

Since September 2006 the Research Analyst has compiled extensive strategic planning
data that provide an overview of facts and projections from national, state, and local
perspectives. The research addresses seven areas: demographics, economy and
employment, education trends, social trends, public policies, technology, and
institutional effectiveness. The Strategic Planning Committees reviews the research
data collected in order to derive Planning Assumptions.

Each Planning Assumption is coded to reference a specific document. Data codes are
included at the end of each Planning Assumption.
     The first letter denotes one of the six planning categories
     The second letter indicates one of the three levels of data/information sources: N
       for national, S for state and L for local.
     The digits before the last hyphen indicate the sequence in which the
       data/information was collected and archived by IVC’s Office of Research and
       Planning.



IVCSPP                                                                                 13
      The last digits refer to page numbers. For example, D-S-3-2, 4 indicates pages 2
       and 4, in the third document collected from the State level for Demographics.

To obtain the research documents, please contact the Office of Research and Planning
or visit http://www.ivc.edu/rpg/pages/planning.aspx.

Planning Assumptions carry policy implications, which become challenges, issues, and
targets for college Objectives. Based on the Planning Assumptions (see Appendix A),
the Strategic Planning Committees generated the 2008/2009 Objectives and Strategies
which follow.

During a college-wide meeting in January 2008, the IVC Strategic Planning Oversight
and Budget Development Committee (SPOBDC) and the Chairs of the Strategic
Planning Committees reviewed IVC’s Mission Statement and long-term Goals. The
Mission Statement and Goals were accepted. In February 2008, the SPOBDC
requested that the college community submit to the President’s Executive Council
(PEC) for review initial proposals for Objectives. The PEC determined the initial
proposals strategic in nature and those operational in nature. Strategic proposals were
assigned to one of the five Strategic Planning Committees. Operational Objectives were
assigned to the SPOBDC. In March 2008, using the Strategic Planning Form 1, Section
II (see Appendix D). the Strategic Planning Committees worked with the authors of the
proposed Objectives to develop the Objective The SPOBDC reviewed and approved
the revised Objectives and which were returned to the Committees for development of
Strategies that clarified the what, when, and where for specific actions. Required
resources were also identified using the Strategic Planning Form 2 (see Appendix D).

In addition, the PEC reviewed the Objectives and Strategies that the programs
undergoing the 2007/2008 Program Review Cycle proposed for the 2008/2009 Strategic
Planning Cycle. Program Review Objectives and Strategies deemed strategic in nature
were assigned to one of the five Strategic Planning Committees. Objectives and
Strategies deemed operational were assigned to the SPOBDC (see Appendix F).

In April 2008, the SPOBDC reviewed the Strategic Planning Form 2’s and made fiscal
recommendations to the PEC. In May 2008, the PEC determined the Objectives and
Strategies to be incorporated in the 2008/2009 college budget.

At the June 2008 Strategic Planning Retreat, the SPOBDC and Strategic Planning
Committee chairs reviewed the IVCSPP and possible modifications for the 2009/2010
Strategic Planning and Budget Development Timeline (see above). Furthermore, the
SPOBDC reviewed the 2008/2009 Strategic Planning Outcome Measures (see
Appendix C) and revised the Strategic Planning Forms 1 and 2 (see Appendix E). In
addition, the SPOBDC reviewed the college governance and decision-making structure.
The institution's governance and decision-making structures need to be evaluated for
integrity and effectiveness on a regular basis. The SPOBDC discussed methods for
college-wide distribution of the results of this evaluation so that the document serves as
the basis for improvement (see Accreditation Standard IV. A 5).



IVCSPP                                                                                 14
At the all-college meeting during Flex week of fall 2008, the college community had the
opportunity for open dialogue with the SPOBDC and the Strategic Planning Committee
chairs about their evaluation. Feedback was not only welcomed; it was strongly
encouraged.

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies for 2009-2010 will be developed in fall 2008 (see
above timeline). At the same time, Objectives and Strategies for 2008-2009 will be
implemented. In January 2009, an evaluation of progress toward the 2008/2009
Objectives and Strategies will be conducted and a report prepared. Because Objectives
and Strategies typically involve multiple components and departments, their evaluation
is complex; however, evaluation is the key for an effective IVCSPP.

* These committees were originally named the Steering Team and the Strategic
Planning Focus Groups (during the 2006/2007 strategic planning year).




IVCSPP                                                                              15
                    OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

OBJECTIVE I: Increase alternative educational delivery systems. (Linked to IVC Goals:
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; and District Goals 1, 11)

      Rationale: IVC will increase enrollment through online classes.

      Strategy a: Establish a faculty technical skills certification for instructors. (Lead
      Person: Bob Urell)

      Strategy b: Identify and allocate funds to develop an online distance education
      orientation template. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Bob Urell)

      Outcome: Expanded online course offerings, including full degrees; increased
      and better organized faculty support for online course development.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009



OBJECTIVE II: Develop programs to meet student and community interests. (Linked to
IVC Goals: 1, 2, 3, 7; and District Goals 1, 9)

      Rationale: This objective will position IVC to develop programs to best serve the
      surrounding community.

      Strategy a: Conduct a thorough assessment of our certificate programs to (1)
      establish whether they meet industry standards predicated upon State
      requirements, (2) assess whether the certificates are viable, and (3) determine
      whether the courses within the certificates are offered in a timely manner. (Lead
      Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy b: Increase short-term courses and weekend course offerings. (Lead
      Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy c: Develop and implement a master calendar for the Performing Arts
      Center for fine arts, including dance, music, theater, and visual arts. (Lead
      Person: Karl Stenske)

      Outcomes: Programs, courses and activities are aligned with the needs of the
      community.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009



IVCSPP                                                                                  16
OBJECTIVE III: Increase course completion rates for credit basic skills courses, credit
vocational courses, and college level courses. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3; and District
Goals 1, 2)

      Rationale: There will be a steady increase in the Asian, Hispanic and Persian
      populations at IVC; IVC will see a significant increase in educationally and
      environmentally disadvantaged students with or without limited English skills. It is
      expected that students will take longer to complete their certificates and degrees
      and will incur a larger debt burden. Students who stay in classes and programs
      are more successful in obtaining degrees and certificates and in moving to the
      next level of their education.

      Strategy a: Establish the Scheduling And Reporting System (SARS) early alert
      program. (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor of Technologies and Learning
      Services, Tran Hong)

      Strategy b: Develop a Degree Audit program. (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor
      of Technologies and Learning Services, Tran Hong)

      Strategy c: Review and revise the AA and AS degree requirements.              (Lead
      Persons: Craig Justice, Kathy Schmeidler)

      Strategy d: Implement the English departmental diagnostic test to determine
      whether students currently enrolled in writing courses are appropriately placed.
      (Lead Persons: Donna Sneed, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy e: Train English faculty to score the diagnostic test in order to establish
      inter-rater reliability for the cross-validation of the test. (Lead Persons: Norming
      Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy f: In conjunction with the departmental diagnostic, conduct a large-
      scale holistic norming session for evaluators. (Lead Persons: Norming
      Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy g: During in-service, conduct basic skills workshops for faculty in writing
      classes. (Lead Persons: Basic Skills Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy h: Design, implement and monitor program and course-level Student
      Learning Outcomes in English, Reading, ESS, ESL and Math basic skills. (Lead
      Persons: SLO Coordinators with respective Faculty)



      Outcome: Develop, publish and regularly evaluate instructional planning and
      student support so that students meet their educational goals.




IVCSPP                                                                                 17
      Evaluation: February 2, 2009




OBJECTIVE IV: Increase student success and persistence rates. (Linked to IVC Goals:
1, 3, 7 and District Goals 1, 2)

      Rationale: IVC may require additional Basic Skills curriculum in order to address
      the increasing needs for remediation among college students and to meet
      standards on the number and percentage of successful degree recipients and
      transfers to 4-year colleges as set by the State Chancellor's Office.

      Strategy a: Implement the paper and computer formats of the College Test for
      English Placement (CTEP). (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor of Technologies
      and Learning Services, Tran Hong, Donna Sneed)

      Strategy b: Use the Departmental Diagnostic data to confirm the validity of the
      CTEP each semester and to adjust cut-scores as needed (Lead Persons:
      Norming Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy c: Review the Math assessment test and implement recommended
      revisions. (Lead Persons: Kathy Schrader, Math Faculty)

      Strategy d: Increase tutorial services by building the Learning Assistance
      Program Center. (Lead Persons: Brandye D'Lena, Glenn Roquemore)

      Strategy e: Identify and allocate additional space for tutoring until the new
      Learning Assistance Program Center is built. (Lead Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy f: Increase counseling services through group advising and group
      workshops. (Lead Persons: Elizabeth Cipres, Counseling Faculty)

      Strategy g: Review the Basic Skills Math program to ensure that curriculum,
      course sequence, and services best serve the students. (Lead Persons: Kathy
      Schrader, Math Faculty)

      Strategy h: Develop and implement offerings for Basic Skills Math course
      modules so that students can progress through the course one step at a time.
      (Lead Person: Ilknur Erbas-White, Kathy Schrader)

      Strategy i: Complete a comparative analysis of Tutoring Services in similar-sized
      institutions and make changes in tutoring practices where appropriate. (Lead
      Persons: Craig Justice, Tutoring Faculty)




IVCSPP                                                                              18
      Strategy j: Identify and designate space for discipline-specific, ticket-attached
      centers in ESS, reading, math, writing and ESL. (Lead Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy k: Staff the discipline-specific, ticket-attached centers with classified
      employees. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice)

      Strategy l: Install SARS Trak Kiosks at all tutorial locations and discipline
      specific ticket-attached learning assistance program centers to collect students’
      positive attendance via student swipe cards. (Lead Persons: District IT, Tran
      Hong)

      Strategy m: Visit World Languages Resource Centers at several local
      community colleges in order to establish a similar Center at IVC. (Lead Persons:
      Dan Rivas, World Languages Faculty)

      Strategy n: Develop a course similar to Writing 180 that would provide World
      Languages students supplemental instruction as needed. (Lead Persons: Dan
      Rivas, World Languages Faculty))

      Strategy o: Research and purchase appropriate equipment and software to
      meet World Languages students’ needs in reading comprehension, writing,
      grammar, vocabulary, listening, pronunciation, and speaking. (Lead Persons:
      Dan Rivas, World Languages Faculty)

      Strategy p: Train faculty to provide appropriate World Languages conferencing
      technique and schedule faculty/student hours. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas,
      Foreign Languages Faculty)

      Strategy q: Provide training for future Math tutors. (Lead Person: Miriam
      Castroconde)

      Outcome: Develop, publish, regularly evaluate and improve a student support
      model designed to maximize student success and retention.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009




OBJECTIVE V: Increase the number of ESL students who successfully complete the
ESL sequence and enroll in college-level English courses. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3, 7;
and District Goals 1, 3, 2):

      Rationale: There will be a steady increase in the Asian, Hispanic and Persian
      populations at IVC; IVC will see an increase in educationally and environmentally
      disadvantaged students with or without limited English skills. It is expected that



IVCSPP                                                                               19
      students will take longer to complete their certificates and degrees and will incur
      a larger debt burden. IVC may require additional Basic Skills curriculum as an
      answer to the increasing needs for remediation among college students and
      scrutiny from the State Chancellor's Office on the number and percentage of
      successful degree recipients and transfers to 4-year colleges.

      Strategy a: Review and redesign the ESL program to ensure that the curriculum,
      course sequence, and services are aligned with the needs of students in this
      path. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy b: Explore the establishment of an ESL lab. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas,
      ESL Faculty)

      Strategy c: Visit ESL centers at other colleges in the State to establish
      benchmarks. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy d: Develop a course similar to Writing 180 to ESL students
      conferencing. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy e: Train faculty to provide appropriate conferencing. (Lead Persons:
      Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy f: Research and purchase writing, grammar, vocabulary and
      listening/speaking skills software to meet the needs of students enrolled in the
      ESL lab. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Outcome: Develop an ESL program with enhanced student support strategies
      that maximizes the opportunities for non-English speakers to complete the ESL
      sequence of courses and successfully enroll in college level English courses.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009




OBJECTIVE VI: : Increase enrollment in courses in Lifelong Learning and contract and
workforce development. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3, 4, 7; and District Goal 1)

      Rationale: There will be a sizeable increase in the number of people over the
      age of 45 in the next 5 years in the effective service area, as the service area
      becomes more mature. While there are opportunities for study in the
      vocational/technical education programs in basic education, and in community
      education courses, the bulk of the IVC curriculum is devoted to the purpose of
      transfer and general education.




IVCSPP                                                                                20
      Strategy a: Evaluate the currency of the curriculum for Lifelong Learning and
      contract and workforce development. (Lead Persons: Dave Anderson, Kathy
      Schmeidler)

      Strategy b: Use the assessment of the curriculum for Lifelong Learning and
      contract and workforce development to write new curricula. (Lead Persons: Dave
      Anderson, Kathy Schmeidler)

      Strategy c: Investigate the establishment of a Business and Professional
      Institute. (Lead Persons: Dean of Workforce Development and Career Technical
      Education, Dave Anderson)

      Outcome: Under the direction of the Dean of Workforce Development and
      Career Technical Education, establish an effective program that is guided by
      data-driven decision making and systematic evaluation and improvement.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009




OBJECTIVE VII: Update and implement the college’s marketing and recruitment plans.
(Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 7, 14; and District Goals 1, 4, 8, 10)

      Rationale: Recruiting efforts must be monitored and expanded to include off-
      campus locations, distance education offerings, and offerings to current high
      school students.

      Strategy a: Develop an annual enrollment management and recruitment plan.
      (Lead Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy b: Conduct an annual analysis of the effectiveness of the marketing
      and outreach projects each year; plan budget expenditures accordingly. (Lead
      Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy c: Develop a template for a college brochure in order to create a
      consistent marketing message for the college. (Lead Persons: Diane Oaks)

      Strategy d: Develop and implement a marketing plan for media outlets. (Lead
      Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy e: Expand outreach efforts to area high schools. (Lead Persons: Donna
      Sneed)




IVCSPP                                                                           21
      Outcome: Provide the community that we serve with an effective communication
      model that informs them of the quality and quantity of relevant educational
      opportunities offered by the college.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009


OBJECTIVE VIII: Expand the Early College Program. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 3, 5,
7; and District Goal 1)

      Rationale: The K-12 schools in the effective service area are typically ranked in
      the top 10% in the state based on California’s Academic Performance Index.
      Students graduating from high schools in the effective service area typically
      have 4-year university acceptance rates that are much higher than the statewide
      average. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Partnerships among
      IVC, K-12, and 4-year institutions seeking to work within this service area, will be
      a necessity in order to increase enrollments.

      Strategy a: Implement the Early College Program at another local high school.
      (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)

      Strategy b: Explore the establishment of an Early College Program in the Irvine
      Unified School District. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)

      Outcomes: The continued expansion of the Early College Program within the
      Tustin Unified School District; the establishment of an Early College Program
      with the Irvine Unified School District and El Toro High School.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009


OBJECTIVE IX: Use college resources efficiently. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9;
and District Goals 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13)

      Rationale: The use of technology will be vital in controlling IVC’s increasingly
      energy efficient buildings and grounds; efforts will be made across campus to
      reduce energy costs of new courses. IVC’s size (population, buildings and
      grounds) will increase, resulting in increased staff and supply needs, on-going
      maintenance and repair, and deferred maintenance.


      Strategy a: Create a college facilities preventative maintenance program that
      incorporates all crafts. (Lead Person: John Edwards)




IVCSPP                                                                                 22
      Strategy b: Maintain safe and effective learning and working environments by
      creating a furniture refresh program, based on an assessment of all furniture.
      (Lead Person: John Edwards)

      Strategy c: Create a vehicle, cart and heavy equipment refresh program to
      ensure the college is programming replacements for high-value items. (Lead
      Person: John Edwards)

      Outcomes: The prevention of potential failures in the college infrastructure that
      could disrupt the execution of educational delivery or student support.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009


OBJECTIVE X: Strengthen campus security and emergency preparedness. (Linked to
IVC Goals: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9; and District Goal 3)

      Rationale: This objective supports the effectiveness of IVC’s public safety and
      emergency readiness for students, faculty and staff during emergencies.

      Strategy a: Publish and implement a campus security and emergency
      preparedness plan. (Lead Person: Will Glen)

      Strategy b: Install internet protocol cameras at strategic outdoor locations as a
      security tool. (Lead Persons: Will Glen, Tran Hong)

      Strategy c: Install tall security fencing around athletic fields to prevent vandalism
      and mitigate potential campus liability. (Lead Person: John Edwards, Will Glen)

      Outcomes: Ensure campus readiness for emergencies and disasters, and deter
      potential criminal activity in support of a safe and secure environment that is
      conducive to the educational mission of the college.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009


OBJECTIVE XI: Hire full-time faculty on a regular and consistent basis when fiscally
possible. (Linked to IVC Goals: 2, 7; and District Goal 10)

      Rationale: This objective helps maintain and increase IVC’s instructional
      effectiveness when facing preexisting program growth, the development of new
      programs, and the replacement of 2009-2010 through 2013 faculty retirements.

      Strategy a: Complete a needs analysis each year that includes separations
      (retirements, resignations, etc.), FTES growth trends, new program development,




IVCSPP                                                                                  23
      and 50%-law benchmarks. (Lead Persons: Glenn Roquemore, Craig Justice,
      Gwen Plano, Davit Khachatryan)

      Outcomes: The development of a systematic review and evaluation of IVC’s
      faculty hiring is intended to produce continuous excellence in academic services.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009
.




* Objectives and Strategies as regrouped by the Strategic Planning Oversight and
Budget Development Committee. Please note that the numbering does not indicate a
prioritization but stemmed from the Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget
Development Committee’s discussion.




IVCSPP                                                                              24
Appendices
Appendix A: Summaries of Research Areas
1. Research Area “Demographics”
NATIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS

D-N-1:

National Population Projections

JENNIFER CHEESEMAN DAY
     Projections illustrate possible courses of population growth.

         The Census Bureau's latest population projections illustrate the future size and
         composition of the United States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, under
         three assumptions about fertility, life expectancy, and net immigration:

         Fertility in the middle series was assumed to remain almost constant, near the
         current fertility level of about 2.1 births per woman. For the low and high
         assumptions, levels of 1.9 and 2.6 births per woman were used, respectively.

         Life expectancy is projected in the middle series to increase from 76.0 years in
         1993 to 82.6 years in 2050. In 2050, life expectancy in the low assumption would
         be 75.3 years and in the high assumption would be 87.5 years.

         Net immigration for the middle series remains constant at 880,000 per year. A
         wide range between the high (1,370,000) and low (350,000) net immigration
         figures reflects uncertainty concerning the future flow of immigrants.

         The U.S. population is growing larger.

         Based on the middle-series projections, the Nation's population is projected to
         increase to 392 million by 2050 -- more than a 50 percent increase from the 1990
         population size. During the 1990's, the population is projected to grow by 27
         million, a 10.8 percent increase. This assumes that fertility, mortality, and net
         immigration would continue to reflect recent trends. Only during the 1950's were
         more people added to the Nation's population than are projected to be added
         during the 1990's. Using the lowest assumptions, the population would grow
         slowly, peak at 293 million by 2030, then gradually decline. Conversely, the
         highest series projects the population to increase quite steadily over the next
         several decades, more than doubling its 1990 size by the middle of the next
         century.



                                                                                            25
The U.S. population growth rate is slowing.

Despite these large increases in the number of persons in the population, the rate
of population growth, referred to as the average annual percent change,1 is
projected to decrease during the next six decades by about 50 percent, from 1.10
between 1990 and 1995 to 0.54 between 2040 and 2050. The decrease in the rate
of growth is predominantly due to the aging of the population and, consequently,
a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. From 2030 to 2050, the United States
would grow more slowly than ever before in its history.

The U.S. population will be older than it is now.

In all of the projection series, the future age structure of the population will be
older than it is now. In the middle series, the median age of the population will
steadily increase from 34.0 in 1994 to 35.5 in 2000, peak at 39.1 in 2035, then
decrease slightly to 39.0 by 2050. This increasing median age is driven by the
aging of the population born during the Baby Boom after World War II (1946 to
1964). About 30 percent of the population in 1994 were born during the Baby
Boom. As this population ages, the median age will rise. People born during the
Baby Boom will be between 36 and 54 years old at the turn of the century. In
2011, the first members of the Baby Boom will reach age 65, and the Baby Boom
will have decreased to 25 percent of the total population (in the middle series).
The last of the Baby-Boom population will reach age 65 in the year 2029. By that
time, the Baby-Boom population is projected to be only about 16 percent of the
total population.

The U.S. population is becoming more diverse by race and Hispanic origin.

The race and Hispanic-origin2 distribution of the U.S. population is projected to
become more diverse. As the Black; Asian and Pacific Islander; American Indian,
Eskimo, and Aleut; and Hispanic-origin populations increase their proportions of
the total population, the non-Hispanic White population proportion would
decrease. By the turn of the century, the non-Hispanic White proportion of the
population is projected to decrease to less than 72 percent with about 13 percent
Black; 11 percent Hispanic origin; 4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander; and less
than 1 percent American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut. By 2050, the proportional
shares shift quite dramatically. Less than 53 percent would be non-Hispanic
White; 16 percent would be Black; 23 percent would be Hispanic origin; 10
percent would be Asian and Pacific Islander; and about 1 percent would be
American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut.

Non-Hispanic Whites, the slowest growing group, are likely to contribute less and
less to the total population growth in this country. Although non-Hispanic Whites
make up almost 75 percent of the total population, they would contribute only 35
percent of the total population growth between 1990 and 2000. This percentage of
growth would decrease to 23 percent between 2000 and 2010, and 14 percent



                                                                                 26
from 2010 to 2030. The non-Hispanic White population would contribute nothing
to population growth after 2030 because it would be declining in size.

According to the middle-series projection, the Black population would increase
almost 5 million by 2000, almost 10 million by 2010, and over 20 million by
2030. The Black population would double its present size to 62 million by 2050.

The fastest growing race groups will continue to be the Asian and Pacific Islander
population with annual growth rates that may exceed 4 percent during the 1990's.
By the turn of the century, the Asian and Pacific Islander population would
expand to over 12 million, double its current size by 2010, triple by 2020, and
increase to more than 5 times its current size, to 41 million by 2050.

Growth of the Hispanic-origin population will probably be a major element
of the total population growth.

According to the middle series, the Hispanic-origin population would be the
largest growing group. By 2000, the Hispanic-origin population may increase to
31 million, double its 1990 size by 2015, and quadruple its 1990 size by the
middle of the next century. In fact, the Hispanic-origin population would
contribute 32 percent of the Nation's population growth from 1990 to 2000, 39
percent from 2000 to 2010, 45 percent from 2010 to 2030, and 60 percent from
2030 to 2050.

Future fertility and immigration may play major roles in the Nation's
growth.

The two major components driving the population growth are fertility (births) and
net immigration. In the middle series, the number of births is projected to
decrease slightly as the century ends and then increase progressively throughout
the projection period. After 2011, the number of births each year would exceed
the highest annual number of births ever achieved in the United States.

Almost one-third of the current population growth is caused by net immigration.
By 2000, the Nation's population is pro-jected to be 8 million larger than it would
have been if there were no net immigration after July 1, 1992. By 2050, this
difference would increase to 82 million. In fact, about 86 percent of the
population growth during the year 2050 may be due to the effects of post-1992 net
immigration.

For Further Information


See: Current Population Reports,
Series P25-1104, Population Projections of the United States, by
Age,
Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050.




                                                                                27
1 The average annual rate of change, or increase, is defined as the natural logarithm of
the ratio of the population at the end of a period to the population at the beginning of the
period, divided by the duration of the period in years.
2 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. These projections do not include the
population of Puerto Rico.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. National Population Projections by J. Cheeseman Day.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/natproj.html




D-N-2:
Source: Immigration, Population, and the New Census Bureau Projections (June 2000)
by Leon KolankiewiczU.S. Center for Immigration Studies.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2000/back600.html



D-N-3:
Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and States: April1, 2000
to July 1, 2030
Source: Table A1 Interim Projections of the Total Population for the United States and
States: April1, 2000 to July 1, 2030. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim
State Population Projections, 2005.


D-N-4:
Health Insurance Coverage: 2005

Highlights:

      The number of people with health insurance coverage increased from
       245.9 million in 2004 to 247.3 million in 2005.1.

      In 2005, 46.6 million people were without health insurance coverage, up
       from 45.3 million people in 2004 (Table 8).

      The percentage of people without health insurance coverage increased
       from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005.

      The historical record is marked by a 12-year period from 1987 to 1998
       when the uninsured rate (12.9 percent in 1987) either increased or was
       not statistically different from one year to the next (Figure 7).2 After
       peaking at 16.3 percent in 1998, the rate fell for two years in a row to 14.2




                                                                                          28
         percent in 2000. The rate then increased until 2003-2004, where it
         remained at 15.6 percent, before it increased to 15.9 percent in 2005.3

        The percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance
         decreased between 2004 and 2005, from 59.8 percent to 59.5 percent.

        While the number of people covered by government health programs
         increased between 2004 and 2005, from 79.4 million to 80.2 million, the
         percentage of people covered by government health insurance remained
         at 27.3 percent. There was no statistical difference in the number or the
         percentage of people covered by Medicaid (38.1 million and 13.0 percent,
         respectively) between 2004 and 2005.

        The percentage and the number of children (people under 18 years old)
         without health insurance increased between 2004 and 2005, from 10.8
         percent to 11.2 percent and from 7.9 million to 8.3 million, respectively
         (Table 8). With an uninsured rate at 19.0 percent in 2005, children in
         poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children (Figure 8).

        The uninsured rate and the number of uninsured remained statistically
         unchanged from 2004 to 2005 for non-Hispanic Whites (at 11.3 percent
         and 22.1 million) and for Blacks (at 19.6 percent and 7.2 million)(Table 8).

        The number of uninsured increased for Hispanics (from 13.5 million in
         2004 to 14.1 million in 2005); their uninsured rate was not statistically
         different at 32.7 percent in 2005.

         1/ The 2004 data have been revised to reflect a correction to the weights
         in the 2005 ASEC, and the estimates were revised based on
         improvements to the algorithm that assigns coverage to dependents. For a
         brief description of how the Census Bureau collects and reports on health
         insurance, see the text box "What is health insurance coverage?" For a
         discussion of the quality of ASEC health insurance coverage estimates,
         see Appendix C.
         2/ The year 1987 is the first year for which comparable health insurance
         coverage statistics are available.
         3/ The difference between the percent uninsured in 1998 and 1997 was
         not statistically significant.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin05/hlth05asc.html


D-N-5:
The Aging of America. Source: Office on Aging (2008).

D-N-6:



                                                                                     29
Lack of skilled workers will lead to fiscal crisis, experts say
Demographers, economists and employers are advocating more investment in training and
education for the immigrants needed to replace the huge outgoing crop of baby boomers.
By Teresa Watanabe
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 21, 2008

With baby boomers preparing to retire as the best educated and most skilled workforce in
U.S. history, a growing chorus of demographers and labor experts is raising concerns that
workers in California and the nation lack the critical skills needed to replace them.

In particular, experts say, the immigrant workers needed to fill many of the boomer jobs
lack the English-language skills and basic educational levels to do so. Many immigrants
are ill-equipped to fill California's fastest-growing positions, including computer software
engineers, registered nurses and customer service representatives, a new study by the
Washington-based Migration Policy Institute found.

Immigrants -- legal and illegal -- already constitute almost half of the workers in Los
Angeles County and are expected to account for nearly all of the growth in the nation's
working-age population by 2025 because native-born Americans are having fewer
children. But the study, based largely on U.S. Census data, noted that 60% of the county's
immigrant workers struggle with English and one-third lack high school diplomas.

The looming mismatch in the skills employers need and those workers offer could
jeopardize the future economic vitality of California and the nation, experts say. Los
Angeles County, the largest immigrant metropolis with about 3.5 million foreign-born
residents, is at the forefront of this demographic trend.

"The question is, are we going to be a 21st century city with shared prosperity, or a Third
World city with an elite group on top and the majority at poverty or near poverty wages?"
asked Ernesto Cortes Jr., Southwest regional director of the Industrial Areas Foundation,
a leadership development organization. "Right now we're headed toward becoming a
Third World city. But we can change that."

How to respond to the inexorable demographic trends is a question sparking a flurry of
studies, conferences and new programs. This week, a USC conference featuring Cortes,
former federal housing secretary Henry Cisneros and other community leaders will
explore ways to help immigrants better integrate into career-oriented jobs and civic life.

The Los Angeles Community College District has launched a workforce development
committee of city officials and community leaders to figure out how to better prepare
students for skills needed in the region.




                                                                                         30
Last week, more than 500 people gathered at Crenshaw High School at a conference
sponsored by One LA-IAF, a network of more than 100 churches, unions and community
groups. The network has launched a collaboration with community colleges and
employers to recruit low-wage workers, many of them immigrants, and train them for
jobs as nursing assistants and solar-panel installers.

"Our vision is to create a seamless program that takes undereducated, underemployed and
underskilled workers and puts them into education and job training that will connect them
to career ladders that pay well and offer benefits," said Yvonne Mariajimenez, a One LA
leader. "It's really rebuilding the middle class."

One of the current trainees is Wendy Estrada, a 30-year-old Honduras native and
naturalized U.S. citizen who aspires to move from her current work as a house cleaner to
a certified nursing assistant and ultimately to work as a licensed vocational nurse.

Estrada first learned about the program at her parish, St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic
Church in Los Angeles. One LA organizers came to recruit members for the pilot
program, funded by the state community college system, offering free classes to upgrade
English and math skills to levels required for a certified nursing assistant course.

Estrada used to dream of becoming a doctor in Honduras before marriage, motherhood
and work struggles in Los Angeles waylaid those plans. She learned English soon after
legally arriving in Los Angeles to join her mother in 1998, so determined to master the
language that she went to classes morning and night, five hours a day, for a year.

When the recruiters came to her parish, Estrada immediately applied.

"I loved the slogan, 'Building a bridge to a new and brighter future,' " she said. "I knew
that education can improve your life, but it was like I fell asleep having to work, pay the
rent and just survive. This program has reawakened my dreams."

For four months, she received training at Los Angeles Valley College in basic math and
English skills geared toward healthcare work -- calculating a baby's head measurement,
for instance -- along with skills in time management, meeting goals, interviewing and job
hunting.

In February, Estrada began her certified nursing assistant course, where she has gained
both practical skills and academic knowledge. On a recent afternoon, she huddled over
another student posing as a patient while trying to figure out which way to turn him to
remove a protective bed pad. Instructor Dory Higgins strode over, took a quick glance
and showed Estrada the right technique.

"You change the soiled pad immediately, before you do anything else, because of skin
damage," Higgins said as students took notes.

The growing import of immigrant workers is reflected in Higgins' class. Among 21



                                                                                          31
students in class that day, 17 were immigrants from a range of countries: Mexico, India,
Guatemala, Egypt, Honduras, Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Ukraine and the tiny West
African nation of Burkina Faso.

One of them was Maria Reyes, 30, a Guatemala native who signed up for the program
through her church. Reyes, who came to Los Angeles at age 5, graduated from high
school and got pregnant at 18; she began working as a waitress to bring in money for her
new family. Her minimum-wage job, however, was leading nowhere.

"I wanted to keep doing something better," Reyes said. "This way I'm helping my family
and other people with needs too."

The class practices with mentors at the Center at Park West nursing home in Reseda. On
a recent Sunday, Estrada showed up at 7 a.m. to make the rounds with Beatrice
Bustamante, a veteran nursing assistant from Colombia. The pair chatted and joked with
the elderly residents as they helped them with massages and shaves, bathing and denture
care.

The job isn't easy. On her first day, Estrada cried at the shock of seeing residents
coughing up their food, suffering loneliness and isolation. But she said she loved helping
the residents -- and they seemed to enjoy her as well.

"They're the best," said Edna Berry, an octogenarian who is bedridden with a gangrenous
leg. "These people are as much family to me as my own family."

Park West administrator Carrie Marks estimated that 90% of her 110 staff positions are
filled by immigrants, who she said make up the "vast majority" of job applicants.

"It's in the self-interest of the older generation to have immigrants here," said Dowell
Myers, a USC urban planning and demography professor and author of the 2007 book
"Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a New Social Contract for the Future of America."

"Even if you don't like it, you have to ask the question: Who's going to fill your jobs, buy
your homes and pay the taxes for old-age support programs?" Myers said.

Nearly one-third of all Americans -- 76 million people -- were born between 1946 and
1964. Boomer retirements are projected to open up nearly 1 million jobs in Los Angeles
County and 3 million in California in the next decade.

The ratio of seniors to workers is expected to double in the next 20 years in Los Angeles -
- a more rapid pace than is expected for the state or nation, Myers said.

The new Migration Policy Institute report, however, noted promising opportunities in Los
Angeles for better integrating immigrants into mainstream economic and civic life. The
region has a more settled immigrant population; new immigration to Los Angeles is at its
lowest level in more than 30 years.



                                                                                           32
An expanding and more culturally integrated population of immigrants' children and
increasing naturalization rates among immigrants could also help ease the transition, said
Michael Fix, vice president of the institute and co-author of the study.

"L.A. is probably better equipped than in the past to deal with this, but still faces pretty
big obstacles," Fix said.

The challenge of filling boomer jobs has prompted several firms and public agencies to
start their own training programs. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
projects that one-third of its 8,300 workers will be eligible for retirement in the next five
years. It is teaming up with unions to recruit new apprentices for such jobs as electrical
distribution mechanics and help them learn the trade. Entry-level meter readers earn
about $12 an hour, but electrical distribution mechanics can earn $48,000 a year with
health benefits.

Susana Reyes, who works with the joint training institute run by the utility and electrical
workers union, said she did not know how many new recruits were immigrants, but that a
recent class included 40% Latinos and 40% African Americans.

"We are anxious to make sure a pipeline of workers is out there and of the quality we
need," she said.

Ultimately, experts say, greater investments in public education, a renewed focus on
vocational education and better job training are critical to California's continued
prosperity. Stephen Levy of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California
Economy said the foundation for the state's robust economy was laid by farsighted
politicians and voters from both parties. They supported the GI Bill, Pell grants and the
vast expansion of the state university system, Levy said, producing the best educated
workforce in U.S. and California history.

The investments more than paid off: Every dollar invested in public education produces
$8 in added tax revenues, according to Myers. He and others worry that Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's proposed cuts in the education budget could cripple efforts to produce
the well-educated and skilled workers California urgently needs.

Even some groups that advocate a reduction in legal immigration as a way to preserve
U.S. jobs agree with the idea of better training for the existing workforce.

"Absolutely we would favor educating and training the labor force of legal immigrants
over bringing in more foreign workers," said Roy Beck, president of the Virginia-based
NumbersUSA.

"Let's invest in people we have here."

teresa.watanabe@



                                                                                               33
latimes.com

For more on the Migration Policy Institute study, visit www.migrationpolicy.org


STATE DEMOGRAPHICS
D-S-1-1:
   2005 SERIES CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POSTSECONDARY ENROLLMENT
                          PROJECTIONS
               GRAND                  UNDERGRADUATE                             GRADUATE
               TOTAL       TOTAL        UC       CSU        CCC       TOTAL        UC      CSU

 History

   1990       2,028,048   1,924,514   125,044   294,083   1,505,387   103,534     28,564   74,970

   1991       2,030,621   1,928,493   125,417   287,815   1,515,261   102,128     28,039   74,089

   1992       2,000,822   1,902,039   124,789   277,122   1,500,128   98,783      28,212   70,571

   1993       1,852,508   1,761,704   122,657   262,492   1,376,555   90,804      27,657   63,147

   1994       1,827,021   1,738,820   121,940   258,960   1,357,920   88,201      27,793   60,408

   1995       1,813,055   1,724,266   123,948   264,023   1,336,295   88,789      27,208   61,581

   1996       1,898,506   1,806,478   126,260   272,642   1,407,576   92,028      27,867   64,161

   1997       1,916,947   1,820,695   128,976   276,054   1,415,665   96,252      28,527   67,725

   1998       2,005,835   1,905,964   132,477   278,597   1,494,890   99,871      28,664   71,207

   1999       2,073,723   1,969,851   136,782   285,033   1,548,036   103,872     29,186   74,686

   2000       2,124,613   2,018,333   141,028   291,955   1,585,350   106,280     29,766   76,514

   2001       2,254,722   2,142,144   147,731   307,450   1,686,963   112,578     31,423   81,155

   2002       2,343,750   2,221,949   154,655   318,933   1,748,361   121,801     33,646   88,155

   2003       2,238,562   2,116,476   159,317   322,609   1,634,550   122,086     35,749   86,337

   2004       2,196,530   2,083,182   158,298   319,568   1,605,316   113,348     35,869   77,479


 Projection


   2005       2,172,966   2,063,204   159,821   332,065   1,571,318   109,762     35,986   73,776

   2006       2,170,821   2,060,980   162,800   338,506   1,559,674   109,841     36,432   73,409

   2007       2,222,494   2,111,685   165,502   348,660   1,597,523   110,809     36,874   73,935

   2008       2,331,417   2,218,085   171,992   364,898   1,681,195   113,332     37,404   75,928
   2009                               177,525   371,910   1,772,429               37,962   77,986



                                                                                                 34
                2,437,812     2,321,864                                          115,948

    2010        2,534,079     2,415,479     181,654     376,636    1,857,189     118,600      38,527     80,073

    2011        2,633,473     2,509,783     185,658     381,843    1,942,282     123,690      39,152     84,538

    2012        2,730,380     2,601,605     188,334     385,069    2,028,202     128,775      39,791     88,984

    2013        2,820,575     2,685,291     189,971     386,476    2,108,844     135,284      40,445     94,839

    2014        2,844,236     2,702,248     191,273     387,444    2,123,531     141,988      41,120    100,868

 Note: UC and CSU report fall census enrollment, and CCC reports fall term-end enrollment. UC enrollment excludes Health
 Sciences. UC graduate enrollment includes students in self-supporting programs.


Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2002.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Projections/Enrollment/Post
secondary/PostSecondaryProjections2005.asp



D-S-2-1

People QuickFacts                                  CA
U.S.A.
Population, 2005 estimate                 36,132,147 296,410,404
Population, percent change,
April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005             6.7%       5.3%
Population, 2000                          33,871,648 281,421,906
Population, percent change,
1990 to 2000                              13.6%         13.1%
Persons under 5 years old,
percent, 2004                             7.3%          6.8%
Persons under 18 years old,
percent, 2004                             26.7%         25.0%
Persons 65 years old and over,
percent, 2004                             10.7%         12.4%
Female persons, percent, 2004             50.1%         50.8%
White persons, percent, 2004
(a)                                       77.2%         80.4%
Black persons, percent, 2004
(a)                                       6.8%          12.8%
American Indian and Alaska
Native persons, percent, 2004
(a)                                       1.2%          1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2004
(a)                                       12.1%         4.2%


                                                                                                                35
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander, percent, 2004
(a)                             0.4%       0.2%
Persons reporting two or more
races, percent, 2004            2.4%       1.5%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino
origin, percent, 2004 (b)       34.7%      14.1%
White persons, not Hispanic,
percent, 2004                   44.5%      67.4%
Living in same house in 1995
and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000      50.2%      54.1%
Foreign born persons, percent,
2000                            26.2%      11.1%
Language other than English
spoken at home, pct age 5+,
2000                            39.5%      17.9%
High school graduates, percent
of persons age 25+, 2000        76.8%      80.4%
Bachelor's degree or higher,
pct of persons age 25+, 2000 26.6%         24.4%
Persons with a disability, age
5+, 2000                        5,923,361 49,746,248
Mean travel time to work
(minutes), workers age 16+,
2000                            27.7       25.5
Housing units, 2004             12,804,702 122,671,734
Homeownership rate, 2000        56.9%      66.2%
Housing units in multi-unit
structures, percent, 2000       31.4%      26.4%
Median value of owner-
occupied housing units, 2000 $211,500 $119,600
Households, 2000                11,502,870 105,480,101
Persons per household, 2000 2.87           2.59
Per capita money income, 1999 $22,711 $21,587
Median household income,
2003                            $48,440 $43,318
Persons below poverty,
percent, 2003                   13.8%      12.5%
   Business QuickFacts                                   California USA
   Private nonfarm establishments, 2003                  827,4721    7,254,745
                                                                   1
   Private nonfarm employment, 2003                      12,991,795 113,398,043



                                                                              36
  Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003      0.8%1         -0.6%
  Nonemployer establishments, 2003                          2,381,043     18,649,114
  Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)                     378,661,414 3,916,136,712
  Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)                                359,120,365 3,056,421,997
  Retail sales per capita, 2002                             $10,264       $10,615
  Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997              28.8%         14.6%
  Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                 27.3%         26.0%
  Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004        207,390       2,070,077
  Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)                                        1
                                                            232,387,168 2,143,781,7272
  Geography QuickFacts                                         California USA
  Land area, 2000 (square miles)                               155,959      3,537,438
  Persons per square mile, 2000                                217.2        79.6
  FIPS Code                                                    06

1: Includes data not distributed by county.
2: Includes data not distributed by state.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County QuickFacts, 2006.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

D-S-3-1
Projecting the Population of California by Nativity and Period of Arrival to 2020. A
California Demographic Futures Working Paper. Prepared for the University of Southern
California, January 2001. J. Pitkin, Analysis and Forecasting, Inc.

D-S-4-1
Fast Facts 2008. Community College League of California.




LOCAL DEMOGRAPHICS
D-L-1-1
BEARFACTS 1994 – 2004
Orange, California (06059)



Orange is one of 58 counties in California. It is part of the Los Angeles-Long Beach-
Santa Ana, CA (MSA). Its 2004 population of 2,982,094 ranked 2nd in the state.

PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME




                                                                                        37
In 2004 Orange had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of $41,868. This PCPI ranked
6th in the state and was 119 percent of the state average, $35,219, and 127 percent of the
national average, $33,050. The 2004 PCPI reflected an increase of 5.9 percent from 2003.
The 2003-2004 state change was 5.4 percent and the national change was 5.0 percent. In
1994 the PCPI of Orange was $26,897 and ranked 6th in the state. The 1994-2004
average annual growth rate of PCPI was 4.5 percent. The average annual growth rate for
the state was 4.3 percent and for the nation was 4.1 percent.

TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME


In 2004 Orange had a total personal income (TPI) of $124,853,736. This TPI ranked 2nd
in the state and accounted for 9.9 percent of the state total. In 1994 the TPI of Orange was
$69,032,555 and ranked 2nd in the state. The 2004 TPI reflected an increase of 6.7
percent from 2003. The 2003-2004 state change was 6.6 percent and the national change
was 6.0 percent. The 1994-2004 average annual growth rate of TPI was 6.1 percent. The
average annual growth rate for the state was 5.6 percent and for the nation was 5.2
percent.

COMPONENTS OF TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME


Total personal income includes net earnings by place of residence; dividends, interest,
and rent; and personal current transfer receipts received by the residents of Orange. In
2004 net earnings accounted for 75.9 percent of TPI (compared with 73.1 in 1994);
dividends, interest, and rent were 15.3 percent (compared with 17.9 in 1994); and
personal current transfer receipts were 8.8 percent (compared with 9.0 in 1994). From
2003 to 2004 net earnings increased 7.3 percent; dividends, interest, and rent increased
4.0 percent; and personal current transfer receipts increased 6.3 percent. From 1994 to
2004 net earnings increased on average 6.5 percent each year; dividends, interest, and
rent increased on average 4.5 percent; and personal current transfer receipts increased on
average 5.9 percent.

EARNINGS BY PLACE OF WORK


Earnings of persons employed in Orange increased from $95,419,355 in 2003 to
$103,362,666 in 2004, an increase of 8.3 percent. The 2003-2004 state change was 7.3
percent and the national change was 6.3 percent. The average annual growth rate from the
1994 estimate of $52,010,201 to the 2004 estimate was 7.1 percent. The average annual
growth rate for the state was 6.1 percent and for the nation was 5.5 percent.
Note: All income estimates with the exception of PCPI are in thousands of dollars, not adjusted for inflation.


Source: Bureau of Economics Analysis. http://bea.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm

D-L-2-1:


                                                                                                       Orange
    People QuickFacts                                                                                  County    California


                                                                                                                          38
Population, 2005 estimate                                   2,988,072   36,132,147
Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005   5.0%        6.7%
Population, 2000                                            2,846,289   33,871,648
Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000                    18.1%       13.6%
Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2004                    7.5%        7.3%
Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2004                   26.7%       26.7%
Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2004                10.4%       10.7%
Female persons, percent, 2004                               50.2%       50.1%

White persons, percent, 2004 (a)                            79.4%       77.2%
Black persons, percent, 2004 (a)                            1.9%        6.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2004
(a)                                                         0.9%        1.2%
Asian persons, percent, 2004 (a)                            15.5%       12.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2004
(a)                                                         0.3%        0.4%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2004          2.0%        2.4%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2004 (b)     32.2%       34.7%
White persons, not Hispanic, percent, 2004                  48.7%       44.5%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000     48.0%       50.2%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000                         29.9%       26.2%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+,
2000                                                        41.4%       39.5%
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000     79.5%       76.8%
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000   30.8%       26.6%
Persons with a disability, age 5+, 2000                     434,000     5,923,361
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000   27.2        27.7

Housing units, 2004                                         1,009,342   12,804,702
Homeownership rate, 2000                                    61.4%       56.9%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2000       33.2%       31.4%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000          $270,000    $211,500

Households, 2000                                            935,287     11,502,870
Persons per household, 2000                                 3.00        2.87
Per capita money income, 1999                               $25,826     $22,711
Median household income, 2003                               $55,861     $48,440
Persons below poverty, percent, 2003                        10.6%       13.8%


                                                                                    39
                                                                Orange
   Business QuickFacts                                          County      California
   Private nonfarm establishments, 2003                         83,164      827,4721
   Private nonfarm employment, 2003                             1,412,657 12,991,7951
   Private nonfarm employment, percent change 2000-2003         2.5%        0.8%1
   Nonemployer establishments, 2003                             227,406     2,381,043
   Manufacturers shipments, 2002 ($1000)                        40,080,953 378,661,414
   Retail sales, 2002 ($1000)                                   35,736,615 359,120,365
   Retail sales per capita, 2002                                $12,205     $10,264
   Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                 28.4%       28.8%
   Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                    25.8%       27.3%
   Housing units authorized by building permits, 2004           9,256       207,390
   Federal spending, 2004 ($1000)                               13,834,698 232,387,1681
                                                                Orange
   Geography QuickFacts                                         County      California
   Land area, 2000 (square miles)                               789         155,959
   Persons per square mile, 2000                                3,605.6     217.2
   FIPS Code                                                    059         06
   Metropolitan or Micropolitan Statistical Area                Los
                                                                Angeles-
                                                                Long
                                                                Beach-Santa
                                                                Ana, CA
                                                                Metro Area

1: Includes data not distributed by county.
(a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.
FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data
NA: Not available
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
X: Not applicable
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
F: Fewer than 100 firms

Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population
Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and
Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997
Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits,
Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06059.html




                                                                                        40
D-L-3-1
People QuickFacts
   Irvine                                                          California
   Population, 2003 estimate                                       170,561 35,484,453
   Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003       19.2%      4.8%
   Population, 2000                                                143,072 33,871,648
   Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000                        28.4%      13.6%
   Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000                        5.6%       7.3%
   Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000                       23.5%      27.3%
   Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000                    7.2%       10.6%
   Female persons, percent, 2000                                   51.6%      50.2%
   White persons, percent, 2000 (a)                                61.1%      59.5%
   Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a)            1.4%       6.7%
   American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a)    0.2%       1.0%
   Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a)                                29.8%      10.9%
   Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a)   0.1%       0.3%
   Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a)            2.5%       16.8%
   Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000              4.8%       4.7%
   Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000             7.4%       32.4%
   Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000         39.2%      50.2%
   Foreign born persons, percent, 2000                             32.1%      26.2%
   Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+,
   2000                                                            39.7%    39.5%
   High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000         95.3%    76.8%
   Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000       58.4%    26.6%
   Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000       22.8     27.7

   Housing units, 2000                                             53,711   12,214,549
   Homeownership rate, 2000                                        60.0%    56.9%
   Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000              $316,800 $211,500

  Households, 2000                                              51,199   11,502,870
  Persons per household, 2000                                   2.66     2.87
  Median household income, 1999                                 $72,057 $47,493
  Per capita money income, 1999                                 $32,196 $22,711
  Persons below poverty, percent, 1999                          9.1%     14.2%
  Business QuickFacts                                        Irvine     California



                                                                                    41
  Wholesale trade sales, 1997 ($1000)                           29,723,127    548,864,451
  Retail sales, 1997 ($1000)                                    1,368,514     263,118,346
  Retail sales per capita, 1997                                 $10,359       $8,167
  Accomodation and foodservices sales, 1997 ($1000)             338,647       42,312,641
  Total number of firms, 1997                                   18,456        2,565,734
  Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                  22.2%         28.8%
  Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                     21.4%         27.3%
  Geography QuickFacts                                          Irvine        California
  Land area, 2000 (square miles)                                46            155,959
  Persons per square mile, 2000                                 3,098.0       217.2
  FIPS Code                                                     36770         06
  Counties                                                      Orange
                                                                County
 (a) Includes persons reporting only one race.
(b) Hispanics may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

FN: Footnote on this item for this area in place of data
NA: Not available
D: Suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information
X: Not applicable
S: Suppressed; does not meet publication standards
Z: Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown
F: Fewer than 100 firms

Source U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population
Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and
Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997
Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits,
Consolidated Federal Funds Report, 1997 Census of Governments
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0636770.html




D-L-4-1:

Irvine city, California
General Demographic Characteristics: 2005
Data Set: 2005 American Community Survey
Survey: 2005 American Community Survey
Demographic - Sex and Age, Race, Relationship, Household by Type
Social - Education, Marital Status, Fertility, Grandparents...
Economic - Income, Employment, Occupation, Commuting to Work...

NOTE. Data are limited to the household population and exclude the population
living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters. For



                                                                                        42
information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,
and definitions, see Survey Methodology.


General Demographic Characteristics: 2005        Estimate Margin of Error
Total population                                 172,182 +/-10,281
SEX AND AGE
Male                                             87,035    +/-5,815
Female                                           85,147    +/-5,988
Under 5 years                                    11,438    +/-1,931
5 to 9 years                                     10,751    +/-2,174
10 to 14 years                                   9,285     +/-1,474
15 to 19 years                                   11,410    +/-2,942
20 to 24 years                                   13,658    +/-2,664
25 to 34 years                                   26,089    +/-2,791
35 to 44 years                                   28,942    +/-3,828
45 to 54 years                                   27,498    +/-2,588
55 to 59 years                                   11,503    +/-1,972
60 to 64 years                                   7,871     +/-1,376
65 to 74 years                                   7,339     +/-1,133
75 to 84 years                                   5,053     +/-1,347
85 years and over                                1,345     +/-512

Median age (years)                               36.0      +/-1.0

18 years and over                                134,985   +/-8,032
21 years and over                                124,476   +/-6,740
62 years and over                                18,268    +/-2,282
65 years and over                                13,737    +/-1,990

18 years and over                                134,985   +/-8,032
Male                                             68,088    +/-5,026
Female                                           66,897    +/-4,435

65 years and over                                13,737    +/-1,990
Male                                             6,599     +/-1,040
Female                                           7,138     +/-1,175

RACE
One race                                         167,568   +/-10,167
Two or more races                                4,614     +/-1,234

Total population                                 172,182   +/-10,281
One race                                         167,568   +/-10,167
White                                            97,112    +/-7,384
Black or African American                        1,422     +/-1,015
American Indian and Alaska Native                420       +/-346
Cherokee tribal grouping                         N         N
Chippewa tribal grouping                         N         N
Navajo tribal grouping                           N         N
Sioux tribal grouping                            N         N
Asian                                            63,111    +/-5,956
Asian Indian                                     9,008     +/-3,671
Chinese                                          21,757    +/-4,082
Filipino                                         5,078     +/-1,829
Japanese                                         3,694     +/-1,344
Korean                                           11,422    +/-2,603
Vietnamese                                       5,879     +/-1,971
Other Asian                                      6,273     +/-2,781




                                                                                43
General Demographic Characteristics: 2005                         Estimate   Margin of Error
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander                        271        +/-218
Native Hawaiian                                                   N          N
Guamanian or Chamorro                                             N          N
Samoan                                                            N          N
Other Pacific Islander                                            N          N
Some other race                                                   5,232      +/-1,877
Two or more races                                                 4,614      +/-1,234
White and Black or African American                               53         +/-91
White and American Indian and Alaska Native                       43         +/-72
White and Asian                                                   2,258      +/-856
Black or African American and American Indian and Alaska Native   0          +/-293

Race alone or in combination with one or more other races
Total population                                                  172,182    +/-10,281
White                                                             101,023    +/-7,504
Black or African American                                         1,765      +/-1,113
American Indian and Alaska Native                                 463        +/-352
Asian                                                             65,976     +/-6,115
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander                        747        +/-603
Some other race                                                   6,957      +/-2,095

HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Total population                                                  172,182    +/-10,281
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)                                  14,757     +/-3,493
Mexican                                                           10,870     +/-2,835
Puerto Rican                                                      379        +/-261
Cuban                                                             604        +/-473
Other Hispanic or Latino                                          2,904      +/-1,142
Not Hispanic or Latino                                            157,425    +/-8,930
White alone                                                       89,443     +/-7,066
Black or African American alone                                   1,263      +/-815
American Indian and Alaska Native alone                           223        +/-223
Asian alone                                                       62,902     +/-5,949
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone                  271        +/-218
Some other race alone                                             461        +/-414
Two or more races                                                 2,862      +/-881
Two races including Some other race                               451        +/-382
Two races excluding Some other race, and Three or more races      2,411      +/-820

RELATIONSHIP
Household population                                              172,182    +/-10,281
Householder                                                       70,449     +/-3,639
Spouse                                                            35,197     +/-2,274
Child                                                             46,725     +/-4,881
Other relatives                                                   7,723      +/-1,513
Nonrelatives                                                      12,088     +/-2,571
Unmarried partner                                                 2,823      +/-872

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households                                                  66,509     +/-3,424
Family households (families)                                      41,714     +/-2,574
With own children under 18 years                                  20,037     +/-2,049
Married-couple families                                           33,245     +/-2,141
With own children under 18 years                                  16,175     +/-1,976
Male householder, no wife present                                 3,428      +/-933
With own children under 18 years                                  1,208      +/-607
Female householder, no husband present                            5,041      +/-1,174
With own children under 18 years                                  2,654      +/-826




                                                                                               44
General Demographic Characteristics: 2005                               Estimate    Margin of Error
Nonfamily households                                                    24,795      +/-2,469
Householder living alone                                                18,659      +/-2,243
65 years and over                                                       2,698       +/-621

Households with one or more people under 18 years                       21,263      +/-1,979
Households with one or more people 65 years and over                    9,434       +/-1,242

Average household size                                                  2.59        +/-0.08
Average family size                                                     3.21        +/-0.10



                                                                                                   Margin
                                                                                                   of
General Demographic Characteristics: 2005                 Estimate                                 Error
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of
uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use
of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of
error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval
defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error
(the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling
variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of
nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not
represented in these tables.

Notes:
·The number of householders does not necessarily equal the number of households
because of differences in the weighting schemes for the population and occupied housing
units.
·For more information on understanding race and Hispanic origin data, please see the
Census 2000 Brief entitled, Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin, issued March 2001.
(pdf format)

Explanation of Symbols:
1. An '*' entry in the margin of error column indicates that too few sample observations
were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is
not appropriate.
2. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that no sample observations were
available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not
appropriate.
3. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that no sample observations were available
to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of
the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended
distribution.
4. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an
open-ended distribution.
5. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
6. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest
interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.
7. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A
statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
8. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this
geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.
9. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0636770&-qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP1&-
ds_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_sse=on




D-L-5-1:



                                                                                                             45
DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data
Geographic Area: Irvine city, California

NOTE: Data based on a sample except in P3, P4, H3, and H4. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, definitions, and count corrections see http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/datanotes/expsf3.htm.

Subject                                                                                          Number             Percent

EMPLOYMENT STATUS
            Population 16 years and over                                                         113,539              100.0
In labor force                                                                                    77,744               68.5
     Civilian labor force                                                                         77,665               68.4
          Employed                                                                                73,707               64.9
          Unemployed                                                                               3,958                3.5
               Percent of civilian labor force                                                       5.1                (X)
     Armed Forces                                                                                     79                0.1
Not in labor force                                                                                35,795               31.5

            Females 16 years and over                                                             59,304              100.0
In labor force                                                                                    36,022               60.7
     Civilian labor force                                                                         36,008               60.7
          Employed                                                                                34,151               57.6

           Own children under 6 years                                                              9,725              100.0
All parents in family in labor force                                                               4,778               49.1

COMMUTING TO WORK
           Workers 16 years and over                                                              72,870              100.0
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone                                                                 57,728               79.2
Car, truck, or van – carpooled                                                                     5,948                8.2
Public transportation (including taxicab)                                                            501                0.7
Walked                                                                                             3,491                4.8
Other means                                                                                        1,293                1.8
Worked at home                                                                                     3,909                5.4
Mean travel time to work (minutes)                                                                  22.8                (X)

           Employed civilian population 16 years and over                                         73,707              100.0
OCCUPATION
Management, professional, and related occupations                                                 42,523               57.7
Service occupations                                                                                5,565                7.6
Sales and office occupations                                                                      20,696               28.1
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations                                                            44                0.1
Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations                                              1,738                2.4
Production, transportation, and material moving occupations                                        3,141                4.3

INDUSTRY
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining                                               139                0.2
Construction                                                                                       2,095                2.8
Manufacturing                                                                                     10,255               13.9
Wholesale trade                                                                                    3,565                4.8
Retail trade                                                                                       7,628               10.3
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities                                                      1,864                2.5
Information                                                                                        2,790                3.8
Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing                                            7,621               10.3
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management
                                                                                                  11,991               16.3
services
Educational, health and social services                                                           16,132               21.9




                                                                                                                    46
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services    5,009         6.8
Other services (except public administration)                       2,589         3.5
Public administration                                               2,029         2.8

CLASS OF WORKER
Private wage and salary workers                                    55,820      75.7
Government workers                                                 11,146      15.1
Self-employed workers in own not incorporated business              6,548       8.9
Unpaid family workers                                                 193       0.3

INCOME IN 1999
          Households                                               51,144     100.0
Less than $10,000                                                   3,310       6.5
$10,000 to $14,999                                                  1,522       3.0
$15,000 to $24,999                                                  3,015       5.9
$25,000 to $34,999                                                  3,315       6.5
$35,000 to $49,999                                                  5,893      11.5
$50,000 to $74,999                                                  9,406      18.4
$75,000 to $99,999                                                  8,169      16.0
$100,000 to $149,999                                                9,262      18.1
$150,000 to $199,999                                                3,871       7.6
$200,000 or more                                                    3,381       6.6
Median household income (dollars)                                  72,057       (X)

With earnings                                                      45,561      89.1
    Mean earnings (dollars)                                        87,262       (X)
With Social Security income                                         6,860      13.4
    Mean Social Security income (dollars)                          12,216       (X)
With Supplemental Security Income                                   1,204       2.4
    Mean Supplemental Security Income (dollars)                     7,136       (X)
With public assistance income                                         531       1.0
    Mean public assistance income (dollars)                         3,816       (X)
With retirement income                                              5,162      10.1
    Mean retirement income (dollars)                               20,976       (X)

          Families                                                 34,591     100.0
Less than $10,000                                                   1,234       3.6
$10,000 to $14,999                                                    670       1.9
$15,000 to $24,999                                                  1,384       4.0
$25,000 to $34,999                                                  1,786       5.2
$35,000 to $49,999                                                  3,369       9.7
$50,000 to $74,999                                                  6,161      17.8
$75,000 to $99,999                                                  6,131      17.7
$100,000 to $149,999                                                7,636      22.1
$150,000 to $199,999                                                3,257       9.4
$200,000 or more                                                    2,963       8.6
Median family income (dollars)                                     85,624       (X)

Per capita income (dollars)                                        32,196         (X)
Median earnings (dollars):
Male full-time, year-round workers                                 64,189         (X)
Female full-time, year-round workers                               41,810         (X)

POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 (below poverty level)
           Families                                                 1,746         (X)
               Percent below poverty level                             (X)        5.0
With related children under 18 years                                1,110         (X)
               Percent below poverty level                             (X)        5.8
    With related children under 5 years                               395         (X)
               Percent below poverty level                             (X)        6.2




                                                                             47
           Families with female householder, no husband present                                         787       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)     16.0
With related children under 18 years                                                                    576       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)     18.8
    With related children under 5 years                                                                 167       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)     32.4

          Individuals                                                                                12,379       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)      9.1
18 years and over                                                                                    10,269       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)     10.0
    65 years and over                                                                                   571       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)      5.6
Related children under 18 years                                                                       2,009       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)      6.1
    Related children 5 to 17 years                                                                    1,488       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)      5.9
Unrelated individuals 15 years and over                                                               7,123       (X)
               Percent below poverty level                                                               (X)     27.6
(X) Not applicable.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P30, P32, P33, P43,
P46, P49, P50, P51, P52, P53, P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P76,
P77, P82, P87, P90, PCT47, PCT52, and PCT53
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-
qr_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_lang=en&-
_sse=on&-geo_id=16000US0636770

D-L-6-1
Irvine city, California
Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005
Data Set: 2005 American Community Survey
Survey: 2005 American Community Survey
NOTE. Data are limited to the household population and exclude the population living in institutions, college
dormitories, and other group quarters. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error,
nonsampling error, and definitions, see Survey Methodology.



Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005                     Estimate      Margin of Error
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units                                        69,192        +/-3,347
Occupied housing units                                     66,509        +/-3,424
Vacant housing units                                       2,683         +/-927

Homeowner vacancy rate                                     0.3           +/-0.5
Rental vacancy rate                                        3.0           +/-2.0

UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1-unit, detached                                           27,458        +/-2,201
1-unit, attached                                           13,305        +/-1,748
2 units                                                    1,375         +/-657
3 or 4 units                                               4,227         +/-998
5 to 9 units                                               7,083         +/-1,580
10 to 19 units                                             3,780         +/-1,153
20 or more units                                           11,111        +/-2,049




                                                                                                                48
Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005           Estimate   Margin of Error
Mobile home                                      853        +/-194
Boat, RV, van, etc.                              0          +/-293

YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Built 2005 or later                              558        +/-837
Built 2000 to 2004                               14,909     +/-1,781
Built 1990 to 1999                               14,446     +/-1,848
Built 1980 to 1989                               17,608     +/-2,295
Built 1970 to 1979                               19,148     +/-1,784
Built 1960 to 1969                               2,192      +/-553
Built 1950 to 1959                               195        +/-142
Built 1940 to 1949                               0          +/-293
Built 1939 or earlier                            136        +/-108

ROOMS
1 room                                           235        +/-195
2 rooms                                          4,856      +/-1,353
3 rooms                                          8,837      +/-1,600
4 rooms                                          14,454     +/-2,337
5 rooms                                          13,441     +/-1,727
6 rooms                                          10,852     +/-1,352
7 rooms                                          7,184      +/-1,252
8 rooms                                          5,552      +/-1,027
9 rooms or more                                  3,781      +/-800
Median (rooms)                                   5.0        +/-0.2

BEDROOMS
No bedroom                                       291        +/-218
1 bedroom                                        11,335     +/-1,777
2 bedrooms                                       22,359     +/-2,464
3 bedrooms                                       18,499     +/-1,773
4 bedrooms                                       13,814     +/-1,636
5 or more bedrooms                               2,894      +/-719

Occupied housing units                           66,509     +/-3,424
HOUSING TENURE
Owner-occupied                                   37,965     +/-1,836
Renter-occupied                                  28,544     +/-3,053

Average household size of owner-occupied unit    2.81       +/-0.10
Average household size of renter-occupied unit   2.30       +/-0.15

YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT
Moved in 2000 or later                           43,912     +/-3,265
Moved in 1995 to 1999                            8,831      +/-1,156
Moved in 1990 to 1994                            4,449      +/-891
Moved in 1980 to 1989                            6,362      +/-1,114
Moved in 1970 to 1979                            2,839      +/-638
Moved in 1969 or earlier                         116        +/-140

VEHICLES AVAILABLE
No vehicles available                            2,340      +/-801
1 vehicle available                              21,191     +/-2,384
2 vehicles available                             30,517     +/-2,398
3 or more vehicles available                     12,461     +/-1,651

HOUSE HEATING FUEL
Utility gas                                      N          N




                                                                              49
Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005   Estimate   Margin of Error
Bottled, tank, or LP gas                 N          N
Electricity                              N          N
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.                 N          N
Coal or coke                             N          N
Wood                                     N          N
Solar energy                             N          N
Other fuel                               N          N
No fuel used                             N          N

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
Lacking complete plumbing facilities     0          +/-293
Lacking complete kitchen facilities      125        +/-144
No telephone service available           1,035      +/-545

OCCUPANTS PER ROOM
1.00 or less                             64,807     +/-3,398
1.01 to 1.50                             1,400      +/-519
1.51 or more                             302        +/-165

Owner-occupied units                     37,965     +/-1,836
VALUE
Less than $50,000                        340        +/-216
$50,000 to $99,999                       912        +/-315
$100,000 to $149,999                     243        +/-134
$150,000 to $199,999                     361        +/-210
$200,000 to $299,999                     1,064      +/-397
$300,000 to $499,999                     4,776      +/-783
$500,000 to $999,999                     25,277     +/-1,834
$1,000,000 or more                       4,992      +/-1,052
Median (dollars)                         683,400    +/-17,136

MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS
Housing units with a mortgage           32,405      +/-1,988
Less than $300                          0           +/-293
$300 to $499                            46          +/-76
$500 to $699                            332         +/-181
$700 to $999                            905         +/-374
$1,000 to $1,499                        3,456       +/-786
$1,500 to $1,999                        4,720       +/-956
$2,000 or more                          22,946      +/-1,941
Median (dollars)                        2,540       +/-111
Housing units without a mortgage        5,560       +/-842
Less than $100                          153         +/-126
$100 to $199                            182         +/-179
$200 to $299                            898         +/-377
$300 to $399                            961         +/-378
$400 or more                            3,366       +/-701
Median (dollars)                        463         +/-46

SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Housing unit with a mortgage             32,405    +/-1,988
Less than 20.0 percent                   8,514     +/-1,186
20.0 to 24.9 percent                     5,128     +/-1,003
25.0 to 29.9 percent                     4,931     +/-894
30.0 to 34.9 percent                     2,730     +/-796
35.0 percent or more                     10,727    +/-1,469
Not computed                             375       +/-314
Housing unit without a mortgage          5,560     +/-842




                                                                      50
Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005                       Estimate      Margin of Error
Less than 10.0 percent                                       3,328         +/-714
10.0 to 14.9 percent                                         584           +/-319
15.0 to 19.9 percent                                         227           +/-188
20.0 to 24.9 percent                                         393           +/-242
25.0 to 29.9 percent                                         254           +/-212
30.0 to 34.9 percent                                         157           +/-154
35.0 percent or more                                         617           +/-293
Not computed                                                 0             +/-293

Renter-occupied units                                        N             N
GROSS RENT
Less than $200                                               N             N
$200 to $299                                                 N             N
$300 to $499                                                 N             N
$500 to $749                                                 N             N
$750 to $999                                                 N             N
$1,000 to $1,499                                             N             N
$1,500 or more                                               N             N
No cash rent                                                 N             N
Median (dollars)                                             1,528         +/-32

GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Less than 15.0 percent                    2,202                            +/-1,051
15.0 to 19.9 percent                      4,091                            +/-1,473
20.0 to 24.9 percent                      3,804                            +/-1,260
25.0 to 29.9 percent                      2,773                            +/-1,178
30.0 to 34.9 percent                      2,718                            +/-1,262
35.0 percent or more                      10,871                           +/-1,708
Not computed                              2,085                            +/-957



Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005                 Estimate          Margin of Error

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of
uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the
use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The
margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the
interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the
margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In
addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a
discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of
nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.

Notes:
·The median gross rent excludes no cash renters.

Explanation of Symbols:
1. An '*' entry in the margin of error column indicates that too few sample observations
were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test
is not appropriate.
2. An '**' entry in the margin of error column indicates that no sample observations were
available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not
appropriate.
3. An '-' entry in the estimate column indicates that no sample observations were available
to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both
of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended
distribution.
4. An '-' following a median estimate means the median falls in the lowest interval of an
open-ended distribution.
5. An '+' following a median estimate means the median falls in the upper interval of an
open-ended distribution.
6. An '***' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the median falls in the lowest




                                                                                                51
Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005                     Estimate        Margin of Error
interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.
7. An '*****' entry in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A
statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
8. An 'N' entry in the estimate and margin of error columns indicates that data for this
geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.
9. An '(X)' means that the estimate is not applicable or not available.


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-
qr_name=ACS_2005_EST_G00_DP4&-geo_id=16000US0636770&-ds_name=

D-L-7-1


Irvine (city), California

   Further information               Want more? Visit HUD's State of the Cities Data System

    People MapStats                                                                         Irvine    California
    Population, 2003 estimate                                                               170,561   35,484,453
    Population, percent change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003                               19.2%     4.8%
    Population, net change, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003                                   27,489    1,612,800
    Population, 2000                                                                        143,072   33,871,648
    Population, net change, 1990 to 2000                                                    31,656    4,060,221
    Population, percent change, 1990 to 2000                                                28.4%     13.6%
    Population under 5 years old, 2000                                                      7,997     2,486,981
    Persons under 5 years old, percent, 2000                                                5.6%      7.3%
    Persons under 18 years old, 2000                                                        33,555    9,249,829
    Persons under 18 years old, percent, 2000                                               23.5%     27.3%
    Population 65 years old and over, 2000                                                  10,302    3,595,658
    Persons 65 years old and over, percent, 2000                                            7.2%      10.6%
    Female persons, percent, 2000                                                           51.6%     50.2%

    White persons, 2000 (a)                                                                 87,354    20,170,059
    Black or African American persons, 2000 (a)                                             2,068     2,263,882
    American Indian and Alaska Native persons, 2000 (a)                                     257       333,346
    Asian persons, 2000 (a)                                                                 42,672    3,697,513
    Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons, 2000
    (a)                                                                                     194       116,961
    Persons reporting some other race, 2000 (a)                                             3,627     5,682,241
    Persons reporting two or more races, 2000                                               6,900     1,607,646
    Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, 2000 (b)                                          10,539    10,966,556



                                                                                                              52
White persons, percent, 2000 (a)                            61.1%      59.5%
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a)        1.4%       6.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000
(a)                                                         0.2%       1.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a)                            29.8%      10.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000
(a)                                                         0.1%       0.3%
Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a)        2.5%       16.8%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000          4.8%       4.7%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b)     7.4%       32.4%

Living in same house in 1995 and 2000, pct age 5+, 2000     39.2%      50.2%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000                         32.1%      26.2%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+,
2000                                                        39.7%      39.5%
High school graduates, persons age 25+, 2000                84,756     4,288,452
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 2000   58.4%      26.6%
Mean travel time to work (minutes), workers age 16+, 2000   22.8       27.7

Households, 2000                                            51,199     11,502,870
Persons per household, 2000                                 2.66       2.87
Housing units, 2000                                         53,711     12,214,549
Homeownership rate, 2000                                    60.0%      56.9%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2000          $316,800   $211,500

Median household income, 1999                               $72,057    $47,493
Per capita money income, 1999                               $32,196    $22,711
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999                        9.1%       14.2%

Very low-income (VLI) owner households, 2000
(preliminary)                                               2,412      827,068
Very low-income (VLI) renter households, 2000
(preliminary)                                               6,015      1,774,858
VLI owner households, pct of total owner households, 2000
(preliminary)                                               7.9%       12.8%
VLI renter households, pct of total renter households, 2000
(preliminary)                                               29.7%      36.4%
Critical housing needs, pct of VLI owner households 2000
(preliminary)                                               64.1%      53.6%
Critical housing needs, pct of total VLI renter hhlds, 2000 71.5%      68.0%


                                                                                 53
   (preliminary)

   Serious crimes known to police, 2000                        3,208        1,266,714
   Serious crimes known to police per 100,000 population,
   2000                                                        2,199        3,740
   Property crimes known to police, 2000                       2,987        1,056,183
   Violent crimes known to police, 2000                        221          210,531

   Business MapStats                                           Irvine       California
   Wholesale trade sales, 1997 ($1000)                         29,723,127   548,864,451
   Retail sales, 1997 ($1000)                                  1,368,514    263,118,346
   Retail sales per capita, 1997                               $10,359      $8,167
   Accomodation and foodservices sales, 1997 ($1000)           338,647      42,312,641
   Total number of firms, 1997                                 18,456       2,565,734
   Minority-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                22.2%        28.8%
   Women-owned firms, percent of total, 1997                   21.4%        27.3%

   Geography MapStats                                          Irvine       California
   Land area, 2000 (square miles)                              46           155,959
   Persons per square mile, 2000                               3,098.0      217.2
   Average daily temperature (farenheit) in January, 1961-90   54.5º        X
   Average daily temperature (farenheit) in July, 1961-90      71.6º        X
   Avg daily maximum temperature (farenheit) in January,
   1961-90                                                     41.4º        X
   Avg daily maximum temperature (farenheit) in July, 1961-
   90                                                          83.7º        X
   Average annual precipitation, 1961-1990                     11.81"       X
   Heating degree days, 1961-1990                              1,784        X
   Cooling degree days, 1961-1990                              973          X
   FIPS Code                                                   36770        06
   Counties                                                    Orange
                                                               County

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development http://www.fedstats.gov/qf/states/06/0636770.html


D-L-8-1
Orange County Workforce 2006: OC 2025: A Wake Up Call?



                                                                                     54
Source: Orange County Workforce: State of the County 2006 Report. The Orange County
Business Council (2006).

D-L-8-1
Population Growth 2000-2050. Sources: U.S. Census 1990, 2000. Department of Finance
2000-2050 projections (2006).

The table below shows population growth between 1990 and 2000:
Countywide overall 60+ population growth was 22.6%
Countywide 60+ projected growth for 2000 to 2005 per DOF is 17%
**Applying 17%projected growth to cities
Countywide 60+ projected growth between 2005 and 2020 is 64%
***Applying 64% projected growth to cities
Source: U.S. Census 1990, 2000
Department of Finance 2000-2050 projections
                        60+
                    POPUL
                     ATION
                       1990   2000 %growt              **2005                  ***2020
                                            h
         Anaheim 31,794 39,806           25%           46,573                   76,380
               Brea   4,427  5,448       23%            6,374                   10,454
      Buena Park      8,424  9,872       17%           11,550                   18,942
   Fountain Valley    5,895  9,264       57%           10,839                   17,776
         Fullerton 16,584 18,606         12%           21,769                   35,701
       Huntington 21,724 27,623          27%           32,319                   53,003
             Beach
         La Habra     7,701  8,189         6%           9,581                   15,713
           Orange 13,790 18,442          34%           21,577                   35,387
         Placentia    4,515  6,030       34%            7,055                   11,570
        Santa Ana 23,264 25,612          10%           29,966                   49,144
             Tustin   5,359  6,890       29%            8,061                   13,221
   Tustin Foothills   4,507  5,375       19%            6,289                   10,314
         Villa Park     798  1,349       69%            1,578                    2,588
      Yorba Linda     5,909  6,705       13%            7,845                   12,866
            TOTAL 154,691 189,211        22%                                   363,058
                                                      221,377




                                                                                55
D-L-10-1
Orange County Population, Education, Labor Force and Employment, and Income and Sales.
Source: Orange County Workforce (2007).




2. Research Area “Economy and Employment”


THE ECONOMY

NATIONAL ECONOMY
EC-N-1-3:
―Because community colleges are affordable, welcoming, and community-based, they are
critical vehicles for getting 18- to 24- year-old students started and keeping them on the
higher education highway. Currently, about 30 percent of community college students
transfer to four-year schools in order to take advantage of the expanding career options
that go with a four-year degree. Successful transitions from two- to four-year institutions
will become all the more important as the minimum education qualification for good jobs
and elite jobs continues to go up.‖
EC-N-1-4:
―…upwardly mobile ethnic and racial groups will rely on community colleges as their
on-ramp to the higher education highway. This is especially true for Hispanic
students…‖
EC-N-1-11:
―The economy not only requires more academic skill to get jobs but also a whole new set
of more general skills, such as leadership, problem solving, and communication.‖
EC-N-1-12:
―The proportion of low-wage service-industry jobs that require high school or less is not
growing. The number of high-paying blue-collar jobs available to workers with high
school diplomas is shrinking. Job growth is concentrated in managerial, professional,
technical, healthcare, and education occupations, which generally require college-level
skills…‖
EC-N-1-15:
―Hispanic and African American workers are underrepresented in high-tech fields.‖
EC-N-1-16:




                                                                                        56
―If low-wage services jobs and high-tech jobs are not growing, and factory jobs are
declining, where are all the new jobs we keep hearing about coming from?…The growth
is coming primarily from three areas: education, healthcare, and white-collar office jobs
throughout the rest of the economy.
EC-N-1-19:
―Community colleges maintain a unique position among educational institutions as
providers of both skill training and academic knowledge.‖
EC-N-1-20:
―Postsecondary education, especially at community colleges, has become our real school-
to-work system and our worker training and retraining system.‖

EC-N-1-21:
―Strengthening collaborations between employers and community colleges satisfies both
the public interest in enhanced individual career development and the private interest in
increased competitiveness…Today, it is the education people get outside the workplace
that ultimately counts the most. They can still make progress by learning on the job, but
they have to get the job first.‖
Source: National Assessments of Adult Literacy (NAAL); Overview, 2003.

EC-N-2-1:
Study: Community colleges one answer to teacher shortage

Faced with a nationwide teacher shortage that promises to become more chronic with
time, both the CTE and traditional K-12 communities are examining ways to recruit
qualified teachers. While the CTE field continues to debate if alternative teacher
certification is the answer to its teacher shortage, some in traditional education are
pointing to community colleges and their teacher preparation programs as one of a
number of viable solutions that deserve a second glance.

Recruit New Teachers, Inc. (RNT), a national nonprofit organization that seeks to expand
the pool of prospective teachers and increase recruitment, has released a study that
identifies the community college as an untapped source of prospective teachers for K-12
schools.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 2.4 million teachers will be needed over
the next decade to staff the nation?s K-12 schools - this is nearly equal the number of
teachers currently in public schools. America is in the grips of the most severe teacher
shortage in 40 years. As a result, there has been increased support for alternative
licensure procedures permitting individuals without the traditional teacher education
training, but a degree in the content area, to become certified. But with 20 percent of
current teachers having begun their education at community colleges, "Tapping Potential:
Community College Students and America's Teacher Recruitment Challenge" argues that
more resources should be allocated to teacher preparation programs at the community
college level. After all, community colleges have a long history of serving the needs of
the workforce in every profession. Increased focus on this pool, the study notes, could
result in the reduction of the shortage by one-quarter or more.




                                                                                         57
RNT, with funding from the Carnegie Corporation, conducted a national study to identify
best practices and policies to strengthen teacher preparation programs at the community
college level, particularly in urban areas where the need is most conspicuous. "Tapping
Potential" incorporates data collected from 50 states, and interviews with state
department representatives from eight states with the largest community college student
populations. Six community college teaching programs became RNT's benchmark for
success because they responded to local teacher shortages; the need for teachers in
particular subjects such as math, science, and bilingual education; and to the shortage of
qualified teachers in urban schools.

The study notes that the pool of qualified teacher candidates has dwindled precipitously
as a result of retirements, increased enrollment, and class-size reduction initiatives. In
many instances, school leaders are forced to offer talented teachers cash bonuses and
other incentives to take appointments in their district, and emergency certification is often
issued to recent college graduates in order to fill the gap. While states have sought to
increase the rigor of traditional programs, they have also allowed alternative routes
licensure as a temporary solution to address staffing shortages. Some educators worry
that standards have been compromised, particularly in urban areas where the need for
qualified teachers is most pronounced. A 1998 study by Education Week, "Quality
Counts '98. The Urban Challenge: Public Education in the 50 states", found that urban
schoolchildren were twice as likely as their suburban counterparts to have unlicensed
teachers or those with emergency certification. In some instances, the percentage of
unlicensed or under-licensed teachers in urban districts was as high as 31 percent,
compared to 7 percent in suburban districts.

"It's been one of the ironies in this profession," said Mildred Hudson, the principal
investigator for the RNT study, and CEO of Recruit New Teachers. "Students who need
qualified teachers the most are the least likely to get them."

Hudson added that increasingly, new teachers go into urban school districts to learn their
craft, and then make a speedy departure for the more attractive suburban districts that
offer less culture shock and more money. Research shows that 30-50 percent of new
teachers leave urban districts in one to five years. "Quality Counts" notes that in 1996, 59
percent of eight-graders in urban districts had at least one teacher leave during the school
year, compared to 27 percent in suburban districts.

"Tapping Potential" contends that America's teacher recruitment challenge can be
overcome if more attention is paid to the thousands of prospective teachers within the
community college system who come from diverse backgrounds and are less likely to
depart from their communities after receiving the necessary training.

"One of the interesting aspects of this study is that they come from the neighborhoods
and they want to teach in these areas," said Elizabeth Foster, a policy and research
associate with RNT. "It's an interesting pool because they are engrained in the
community." It is the community colleges' "open access to all" credo combined with
flexibility and low-cost tuition/fees that benefit a wide range of individuals, Hudson said.



                                                                                          58
Findings
Based on evaluations at six sites, RNT found that teacher training programs at
community colleges are effective if they:


Establish clear goals.
Demonstrate strong leadership.
Hire dedicated and demanding faculty.
Design well-placed and consistent recruitment efforts.
Plan a relevant and coherent curriculum.
Create partnerships with four-year institutions.
Provide student support.
Ensure adequate funding.
Assess and monitor students in the program.
Both Hudson and Foster say that though community colleges offer promise in easing the
teacher shortage, they are by no means a panacea. They argue, however, that more money
should be invested in this particular area because community colleges offer solutions to
increase and diversify the cadre of teachers ? the latter necessary to mirror America ?s
diverse student body.

"A key issue is one of diversity," Hudson said. "This is a practical way to diversify
America ?s teaching force." The study contends that recruitment success is contingent on
integral collaborative efforts between community colleges, four-year colleges, local/state
and federal policymakers. The study's authors have made the following
recommendations:

Community colleges
Incorporate teacher preparation into their mission and strategic plan.
Design teacher preparation programs that provide students with relevant, demanding
coursework.
Document the successful academic and teaching careers of current and former students.
Advocate for assessment measures that accurately gauge student and program success.
Strengthen inter-institutional collaborations through articulation agreements.
Provide consistent funding to teacher preparation programs.


Four-year colleges
Identify strong candidates for teaching by working with community college programs.
Create formal articulation agreements and develop long-term collaborations with
community colleges.
Provide reduced tuition, scholarships, dual enrollment programs and support systems for
community college education students.
Provide release time and support for faculty members.
Research the strengths of nontraditional and transfer students.
Policymakers



                                                                                        59
Fund initiatives that cultivate strong students at community colleges.
Support a transfer process from the community college to four-year colleges.
Facilitate the development of models built on best practices.


RNT is not the only organization taking notice of community colleges and the role they
can play to ease the teacher shortage debacle. Sandra Feldman, president of the American
Federation of Teachers, was in attendance when RNT released the study?s findings at a
press conference last week.

"This report demonstrates that community colleges can and do offer students sound
preparation for a teaching career - particularly through a rigorous liberal arts program,"
she said.

"We need more of this, and this report shines a light on how it can and should be done."

RNT now plans to "keep these issues in the public's eye" by participating in national
meetings, workshops, and by writing articles in various journals and publications.
Hudson will also present RNT's findings to the National Governor's Association and to
community colleges across the United States.
Source: Study, CommunityColleges One Answer to Teacher Shortage, Association for Career and Technical Education, 2003.


EC-N-3:
Fastest Growing Occupations, 2004-2014 [Numbers in Thousands]
                    Employment Change                   Quartile
                    Number                              rank by Most
                                                        2004     significant
2004 National                                           median source of
Employment                                              annual postsecondary
Matrix code and                                         earnings education or
title               2004 2014 Number Percent 1                   training2
31-1011 Home                                                                                                 Short-term on-
                                 624          974         350              56.0            VL
health aides                                                                                                 the-job training
15-1081
Network
systems and                                                                                                  Bachelor's
               231                            357         126              54.6            VH
data                                                                                                         degree
communications
analysts
31-9092                                                                                                      Moderate-term
Medical                          387          589         202              52.1            L                 on-the-job
assistants                                                                                                   training
29-1071                                                                                                      Bachelor's
                                 62           93          31               49.6            VH
Physician                                                                                                    degree


                                                                                                                         60
                 Employment Change       Quartile
                Number                   rank by Most
                                         2004     significant
2004 National                            median source of
Employment                               annual postsecondary
Matrix code and                          earnings education or
title           2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
assistants
15-1031
Computer
                                                 Bachelor's
software         460   682   222     48.4   VH
                                                 degree
engineers,
applications
31-2021
Physical                                         Associate
                 59    85    26      44.2   H
therapist                                        degree
assistants
29-2021 Dental                                   Associate
               158     226   68      43.3   VH
hygienists                                       degree
15-1032
Computer
software                                         Bachelor's
                 340   486   146     43.0   VH
engineers,                                       degree
systems
software
                                                 Moderate-term
31-9091 Dental
               267     382   114     42.7   L    on-the-job
assistants
                                                 training
39-9021
                                                 Short-term on-
Personal and    701    988   287     41.0   VL
                                                 the-job training
home care aides


15-1071
Network and
                                                 Bachelor's
computer         278   385   107     38.4   VH
                                                 degree
systems
administrators
15-1061
                                                 Bachelor's
Database         104   144   40      38.2   VH
                                                 degree
administrators
29-1123          155   211   57      36.7   VH   Master's degree


                                                        61
                  Employment Change      Quartile
                Number                   rank by Most
                                         2004     significant
2004 National                            median source of
Employment                               annual postsecondary
Matrix code and                          earnings education or
title           2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
Physical
therapists
19-4092
Forensic                                          Associate
                  10    13    4       36.4   VH
science                                           degree
technicians
29-2056
Veterinary                                        Associate
                60      81    21      35.3   L
technologists                                     degree
and technicians
29-2032
Diagnostic                                        Associate
                  42    57    15      34.8   VH
medical                                           degree
sonographers
31-2022
                                                  Short-term on-
Physical          43    57    15      34.4   L
                                                  the-job training
therapist aides
31-2011
Occupational                                      Associate
                  21    29    7       34.1   H
therapist                                         degree
assistants
19-1042
Medical
scientists,     72      97    25      34.1   VH   Doctoral degree
except
epidemiologists
29-1122
Occupational      92    123   31      33.6   VH   Master's degree
therapists


25-2011
                                                  Postsecondary
Preschool
                  431   573   143     33.1   L    vocational
teachers,
                                                  award
except special



                                                         62
                Employment Change        Quartile
                Number                   rank by Most
                                         2004     significant
2004 National                            median source of
Employment                               annual postsecondary
Matrix code and                          earnings education or
title           2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
education
29-2031
Cardiovascular                                   Associate
                45    60    15      32.6   H
technologists                                    degree
and technicians
25-1000
Postsecondary   1,628 2,153 524     32.2   VH    Doctoral degree
teachers
19-2043
                8     11    3       31.6   VH    Master's degree
Hydrologists
15-1051
Computer                                         Bachelor's
                487   640   153     31.4   VH
systems                                          degree
analysts
47-4041
Hazardous                                        Moderate-term
materials       38    50    12      31.2   H     on-the-job
removal                                          training
workers
17-2031
                                                 Bachelor's
Biomedical      10    13    3       30.7   VH
                                                 degree
engineers
13-1071
Employment,
                                                 Bachelor's
recruitment,    182   237   55      30.5   H
                                                 degree
and placement
specialists
17-2081
                                                 Bachelor's
Environmental   49    64    15      30.0   VH
                                                 degree
engineers
23-2011
                                                 Associate
Paralegals and 224    291   67      29.7   H
                                                 degree
legal assistants




                                                        63
                     Employment Change   Quartile
                Number                   rank by Most
                                         2004     significant
2004 National                            median source of
Employment                               annual postsecondary
Matrix code and                          earnings education or
title           2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
Footnotes:
(1) The quartile rankings of Occupational Employment Statistics Survey
annual earnings data are presented in the following categories: VH=very high
($43,605 and over), H=high ($28,590 to $43,604), L=low ($20,185 to
$28,589), and VL=very low(up to $20,184). The rankings were based on
quartiles using one-fourth of total employment to define each quartile.
Earnings are for wage and salary workers.
(2) An occupation is placed into one of 11 categories that best describes the
postsecondary education or training needed by most workers to become fully
qualified. For more information about the categories, see Occupational
Projections and Training Data, 2004-05 edition, Bulletin 2572 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, March 2004) and Occupational Projections and Training
Data, 2006-07 edition, Bulletin 2602 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
forthcoming).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review,
November 2005.


EC-N-4:
Table 3 - Occupations with the Largest Job Growth, 2004-2014 [Numbers in
thousands]
Table 3. Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004-14
[Numbers in thousands]
                 Employment Change   Quartile
            Number                   rank by Most
2004                                 2004     significant
National                             median source of
Employment                           annual postsecondary
Matrix code                          earnings education or
and title   2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
41-2031 Retail                                                  Short-term on-
                 4,256 4,992 736          17.3      VL
salespersons                                                    the-job training
29-1111
                                                                Associate
Registered       2,394 3,096 703          29.4      VH
nurses                                                          degree
25-1000          1,628 2,153 524          32.2      VH          Doctoral degree


                                                                            64
Table 3. Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004-14
[Numbers in thousands]
                 Employment Change        Quartile
                 Number                   rank by Most
2004                                      2004     significant
National                                  median source of
Employment                                annual postsecondary
Matrix code                               earnings education or
and title        2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
Postsecondary
teachers
43-4051
                                                   Moderate-term
Customer
                 2,063 2,534 471  22.8    L        on-the-job
service
representatives                                    training
37-2011
Janitors and
cleaners, except                                   Short-term on-
                 2,374 2,813 440  18.5    VL
maids and                                          the-job training
housekeeping
cleaners
35-3031
                                                   Short-term on-
Waiters and      2,252 2,627 376  16.7    VL
                                                   the-job training
waitresses
35-3021
Combined food
preparation
                                                   Short-term on-
and serving      2,150 2,516 367  17.1    VL
                                                   the-job training
workers,
including fast
food
31-1011 Home                                            Short-term on-
                 624   974   350     56.0     VL
health aides                                            the-job training
31-1012
                                                        Postsecondary
Nursing aides,
                 1,455 1,781 325     22.3     L         vocational
orderlies, and
attendants                                              award

11-1021                                                 Bachelor's or
General and                                             higher degree,
                 1,807 2,115 308     17.0     VH
operations                                              plus work
managers                                                experience




                                                                   65
Table 3. Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004-14
[Numbers in thousands]
                  Employment Change       Quartile
                 Number                   rank by Most
2004                                      2004     significant
National                                  median source of
Employment                                annual postsecondary
Matrix code                               earnings education or
and title        2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
39-9021
                                                   Short-term on-
Personal and     701   988   287  41.0    VL
home care aides                                    the-job training
25-2021
Elementary
                                                   Bachelor's
school teachers, 1,457 1,722 265  18.2    H
except special                                     degree
education
13-2011
                                                   Bachelor's
Accountants      1,176 1,440 264  22.4    VH
                                                   degree
and auditors
43-9061 Office                                          Short-term on-
                  3,138 3,401 263     8.4     L
clerks, general                                         the-job training
53-7062
Laborers and
                                                        Short-term on-
freight, stock,   2,430 2,678 248     10.2    VL
and material                                            the-job training
movers, hand
43-4171
Receptionists
                                                        Short-term on-
and               1,133 1,379 246     21.7    L
information                                             the-job training
clerks
37-3011
Landscaping
                                                        Short-term on-
and               1,177 1,407 230     19.5    L
groundskeeping                                          the-job training
workers
53-3032 Truck
                                                        Moderate-term
drivers, heavy
                  1,738 1,962 223     12.9    H         on-the-job
and tractor-
trailer                                                 training
15-1031                                                 Bachelor's
                  460   682   222     48.4    VH
Computer                                                degree


                                                                     66
Table 3. Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004-14
[Numbers in thousands]
                Employment Change     Quartile
             Number                   rank by Most
2004                                  2004     significant
National                              median source of
Employment                            annual postsecondary
Matrix code                           earnings education or
and title    2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
software
engineers,
applications
49-9042
Maintenance                                    Moderate-term
and repair   1,332 1,533 202  15.2    H        on-the-job
workers,                                       training
general


31-9092                                                 Moderate-term
Medical         387   589   202      52.1     L         on-the-job
assistants                                              training
43-6011
Executive                                               Moderate-term
secretaries and 1,547 1,739 192      12.4     H         on-the-job
administrative                                          training
assistants
41-4012 Sales
representatives,
wholesale and                                           Moderate-term
manufacturing, 1,454 1,641 187       12.9     VH        on-the-job
except technical                                        training
and scientific
products
47-2031                                                 Long-term on-
                1,349 1,535 186      13.8     H
Carpenters                                              the-job training
25-9041
                                                        Short-term on-
Teacher         1,296 1,478 183      14.1     VL
                                                        the-job training
assistants
39-9011 Child                                           Short-term on-
                1,280 1,456 176      13.8     VL
care workers                                            the-job training
35-2021 Food                                            Short-term on-
                889   1,064 175      19.7     VL
preparation                                             the-job training



                                                                   67
Table 3. Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004-14
[Numbers in thousands]
                  Employment Change        Quartile
                  Number                   rank by Most
2004                                       2004     significant
National                                   median source of
Employment                                 annual postsecondary
Matrix code                                earnings education or
and title         2004 2014 Number Percent 1        training2
workers
37-2012 Maids
and                                                 Short-term on-
                  1,422 1,587 165  11.6    VL
housekeeping                                        the-job training
cleaners
53-3033 Truck
drivers, light or                                   Short-term on-
                  1,042 1,206 164  15.7    L
delivery                                            the-job training
services
15-1051
Computer                                            Bachelor's
                  487   640   153  31.4    VH
systems                                             degree
analysts

Footnotes:
(1) The quartile rankings of Occupational Employment Statistics Survey annual earnings
data are presented in the following categories: VH=very high ($43,605 and over), H=high
($28,590 to $43,604), L=low ($20,185 to $28,589), and VL=very low(up to $20,184). The
rankings were based on quartiles using one-fourth of total employment to define each
quartile. Earnings are for wage and salary workers.
(2) An occupation is placed into one of 11 categories that best describes the postsecondary
education or training needed by most workers to become fully qualified. For more
information about the categories, see Occupational Projections and Training Data, 2004-05
edition, Bulletin 2572 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2004) and Occupational
Projections and Training Data, 2006-07 edition, Bulletin 2602 (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
forthcoming).
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review,
November 1999.

EC-N-6:
Job outlook for college graduates 2004-2014.
Source: Job outlook for college graduates 2004-2014. By O. Crosby and R. Moncarz.
Occupational Outlook Quarterly, Fall 2006, 42-57.




                                                                                       68
EC-N-7:
Job Outlook by Education, 2004-14.
Source: Job Outlook by Education, 2004-14. The 2004-14 job outlook for people who
don’t have a bachelor’s degree. By O. Crosby and R. Moncarz. Occupational Outlook
Quarterly, Fall 2006, 27-41.




STATE ECONOMY

EC-S-1
                              California Employment by Selected Industry
                                        Data in Thousands, Seasonally Adjusted
                                                                                         Percent Change From
                                         Aug 06              Jul 06
                                        (Prelim)          (Revised)         Aug 05          Jul 06         Aug 05
Total Farm                                369.4              378.2               369.2       -2.3%             0.1%
Total, Nonfarm                         15,026.3            14,989.4        14,834.3          0.2%              1.3%
 Construction                             916.2              920.0               909.4       -0.4%             0.7%
 Manufacturing                           1,510.4            1,507.2         1,508.6          0.2%              0.1%
 Trade, Transp., &
                                         2,838.5            2,837.9         2,826.7          0.0%              0.4%
 Utilities
 Information                              471.5              465.6               480.8       1.3%              -1.9%
 Professional &
                                         2,206.0            2,198.1         2,157.2          0.4%              2.3%
 Business Serv.
 Educational &
                                         1,615.3            1,609.4         1,584.5          0.4%              1.9%
 Health Serv.
 Leisure &
                                         1,518.0            1,513.9         1,475.8          0.3%              2.9%
 Hospitality Serv.
 Government                              2,458.1            2,447.8         2,424.5          0.4%              1.4%
Additional Data Official Press Release Release Schedule

Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information
Division.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/



EC-S-2:
Per Capita Personal Income in Current Dollar by Consolidated Metropolitan
Statistical Area (CMSA), 1969 to 1998




                                                                                                                69
                         Comparison of Per Capita Personal Income
                                                                        (1999 Constant Dollars)
42,500
                              U.S.
40,000
                              California
37,500                        San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (CMSA)
                              SCAG 6-County Region
35,000

32,500

30,000

27,500

25,000

22,500

20,000

17,500

15,000
         1969
                1970
                       1971
                              1972
                                     1973
                                            1974
                                                   1975
                                                          1976
                                                                 1977
                                                                        1978
                                                                               1979
                                                                                      1980
                                                                                             1981
                                                                                                    1982
                                                                                                           1983
                                                                                                                  1984
                                                                                                                         1985
                                                                                                                                1986
                                                                                                                                       1987
                                                                                                                                              1988
                                                                                                                                                     1989
                                                                                                                                                            1990
                                                                                                                                                                   1991
                                                                                                                                                                          1992
                                                                                                                                                                                 1993
                                                                                                                                                                                        1994
                                                                                                                                                                                               1995
                                                                                                                                                                                                      1996
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1997
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1998
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1999
                         Comparison of Per Capita Personal Income
                                                                        (1999 Constant Dollars)
35,000
                        U.S.                                                   California
32,500                  Imperial                                               Los Angeles
                        Orange                                                 Riverside
30,000                  San Bernardino                                         Ventura


27,500


25,000


22,500


20,000


17,500


15,000
         1969
                1970
                       1971
                              1972
                                     1973
                                            1974
                                                   1975
                                                          1976
                                                                 1977
                                                                        1978
                                                                               1979
                                                                                      1980
                                                                                             1981
                                                                                                    1982
                                                                                                           1983
                                                                                                                  1984
                                                                                                                         1985
                                                                                                                                1986
                                                                                                                                       1987
                                                                                                                                              1988
                                                                                                                                                     1989
                                                                                                                                                            1990
                                                                                                                                                                   1991
                                                                                                                                                                          1992
                                                                                                                                                                                 1993
                                                                                                                                                                                        1994
                                                                                                                                                                                               1995
                                                                                                                                                                                                      1996
                                                                                                                                                                                                             1997
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    1998
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1999




                                                                                                                                                                                                                             70
                   Index of Per Capita Personal Income
                            (CA per capita Income = 100)
 120                                                                                 120


 110                                                                                 110


 100                                                                                 100


  90                                                                                 90


  80                                                                                 80


  70                                                                                 70


  60          U.S.                       Imperial                                    60
              Los Angeles                Orange
              Riverside                  San Bernardino
              Ventura                    SCAG 6-County Region
  50                                                                                 50
     69
     70
     71
     72
     73
     74
     75
     76
     77
     78
     79
     80
     81
     82
     83
     84
     85
     86
     87
     88
     89
     90
     91
     92
     93
     94
     95
     96
     97
     98
     99
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
   19
Source: Regional Economy website (part of the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) website)/
http://www.scag.ca.gov/Economy/econdata.html#inc



EC-S-3:
California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information
Social & Economic Data. Table 1 Public Assistance Recipients by Program
Public School Students Enrolled in the Free or Reduced Price Meal Program:
Region                           Percent
California
2001             2002               2003             2004             2005
46.8%            47.1%              48.7%            49.0%            49.7%

Definition: Percentage of public school students enrolled in the Free or Reduced Price
Meal Program.

Footnote: Years presented are the final year of a school year, e.g., 1998-1999 is shown
as 1999. N/A means that data do not exist. Whisman Elementary and Mountain View
Elementary School Districts combined in 2002, therefore no data exists for each
individual district after 2001.

Data Source: Ed-Data: Fiscal, Demographic and Performance Data on California's K-12


                                                                                         71
Schools. Education Data Partnership. http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/welcome.asp.
Retrieved 02/16/06.


EC-S-4:
California Facts:
Median Family Income
2000              2001                  2002                2003         2004
$53,096.00        $54,298.00            $56,276.00          $56,530.00   $58,327.00


Health Insurance Coverage, by Type of Health Insurance

Type of Health Insurance        2001              2003

Employment Based Insurance      59.0%             54.4%

Medi-Cal / Healthy Families     27.6%             32.2%

Uninsured                        9.4%             7.1%

Privately Purchased              2.9%             4.9%

Other Public                     1.1%             1.4%




Households that Can Afford to Purchase a Median-Priced Home
(Showing Most Recent 5 Years; Show All )
1996             1998             2000             2002                  2004
41%              41%              34%              31%                   23%


Legal Immigration, by Age Group (Pre-2003)

Age Group                       1999       2000      2001      2002

Age 0 - 17                      41,880     48,766    53,369    49,269

Age 18 - 64                     108,203    155,795   212,981   223,807

Age 65 and Above                10,776     12,607    15,811    18,085

Total                           160,859    217,168   282,161   291,161




Children in Poverty, Ages 0 - 17
(Showing Most Recent 5 Years; Show All )
1999             2000            2001                       2002         2003


                                                                                      72
20.2%              18.5%               17.6%             19.2%            19.6%


Public School Students Enrolled in CalWORKs
(Showing Most Recent 5 Years; Show All )
2000               2001                2002              2003             2004
14.3%              12.7%               11.0%             10.1%            9.3%


Source: Kidsdata.org. Kidsdata.org is a program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for
Children's Health.
http://www.kidsdata.org/rgnresults.jsp?menuused=indexregion&r=2

EC-S-5:
California Dropout Research Project. An Affiliated Project of the University of California
Linguistic Minority Research Institute. UC Santa Barbara and Gevirtz Graduate School
of Education. The Economic Losses from High School Dropouts in California by
Clive R. Belfield and Henry M. Levin (2007).


LOCAL ECONOMY:
EC-L-1:
Table 2 – 30 Fastest Growing Occupations in Orange County, 2002-2012 (numbers in thousands)
                           Est.Year
                           -           Est.         Proj.                  %        Growth
Occupation                 Proj.Year   Employment   Employment   Change    Change   rate %
Total, All                 2002 -
Occupations                2012        1,403,700 1,711,500 307,800 21.9             2
Office and
Administrative
Support                    2002 -
Occupations                2012        267,260      297,410      30,150    11.3     1.1
Sales and Related          2002 -
Occupations                2012        160,870      194,950      34,080    21.2     1.9
Food Preparation
and Serving
Related                    2002 -
Occupations                2012        112,330      145,650      33,320    29.7     2.6
Production                 2002 -
Occupations                2012        127,950      140,410      12,460    9.7      0.9
Education, Training,       2002 -
and Library Occup.         2012        76,400       107,230      30,830    40.4     3.4
Management                 2002 -
Occupations                2012        84,900       105,580      20,680    24.4     2.2
Retail Sales               2002 -
Workers                    2012        84,890       102,860      17,970    21.2     1.9
Transportation and         2002 -
Material Moving            2012        82,330       93,600       11,270    13.7     1.3


                                                                                          73
Occupations

Construction and
Extraction           2002 -
Occupations          2012     66,170   93,430   27,260   41.2   3.5
Business and
Financial
Operations           2002 -
Occupations          2012     65,580   82,430   16,850   25.7   2.3
Food and Beverage    2002 -
Serving Workers      2012     62,270   82,130   19,860   31.9   2.8
Information and      2002 -
Record Clerks        2012     66,000   78,830   12,830   19.4   1.8
Construction         2002 -
Trades Workers       2012     54,110   77,180   23,070   42.6   3.6
Building & Grounds
Cleaning &
Maintenance          2002 -
Occup.               2012     47,450   62,320   14,870   31.3   2.8
Other Office and
Administrative       2002 -
Support Workers      2012     55,900   60,490   4,590    8.2    0.8
Healthcare
Practitioners and
Technical           2002 -
Occupations         2012      46,390   56,730   10,340   22.3   2
                    2002 -
Retail Salespersons 2012      44,950   54,410   9,460    21     1.9
Material Moving     2002 -
Workers             2012      48,620   54,090   5,470    11.3   1.1
Installation,
Maintenance, and    2002 -
Repair Occupations 2012       43,750   53,060   9,310    21.3   1.9
Computer and
Mathematical        2002 -
Occupations         2012      39,650   51,780   12,130   30.6   2.7
Personal Care and
Service             2002 -
Occupations         2012      39,510   51,590   12,080   30.6   2.7
Computer            2002 -
Specialists         2012      38,750   50,750   12,000   31     2.7
BusinessOperations 2002 -
Specialists         2012      39,180   49,400   10,220   26.1   2.3
Material Recording,
Scheduling,         2002 -
Dispatching, and D 2012       46,370   48,620   2,250    4.9    0.5



                                                                      74
 Primary, Secondary
 & Special               2002 -
 Education Teachers 2012          36,450       48,510      12,060 33.1      2.9
                         2002 -
 Financial Clerks        2012     40,800       46,780      5,980      14.7  1.4
 Architecture and
 Engineering             2002 -
 Occupations             2012     36,550       42,400      5,850      16    1.5
 Secretaries and
 Administrative          2002 -
 Assistants              2012     38,590       41,620      3,030      7.9   0.8
 Other Production        2002 -
 Occupations             2012     35,480       40,970      5,490      15.5  1.4
 Office Clerks,          2002 -
 General                 2012     35,210       40,120      4,910      13.9  1.3
Source: California Labor Market Info, September 2006.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult
.asp?viewAll=yes&viewAllUS=&currentPage=&currentPageUS=&sortUp=&sortDown=
&criteria=Fast+Growing+Occupations&categoryType=employment&geogArea=060400
0059&timeseries=&more=More&menuChoice=localAreaPro&printerFriendly=&BackHi
story=-1&goTOPageText=



EC-L-2:
Table 2 – 30 Slowest Growing Occupations in Orange County, 2002-2012 (numbers in
thousands)

                       Est.Year -   Est.         Proj.                 %        Growth
Occupation             Proj.Year    Employment   Employment   Change   Change   rate %
Parking
Enforcement            2002 -
Workers                2012         100          110          10       10       1
Judges,
Magistrate
Judges, and            2002 -
Magistrates            2012         100          110          10       10       1
Precision
Instrument &
Equipment              2002 -
Repairers, Other       2012         100          110          10       10       1
Motion Picture         2002 -
Projectionists         2012         130          120          -10      -7.7     -0.8
Recreational           2002 -
Therapists             2012         120          120          0        0        0
Correspondence         2002 -
Clerks                 2012         120          120          0        0        0


                                                                                         75
Furnace, Kiln,
Oven, Drier, &
Kettle Oper. &        2002 -
Tende                 2012     120   120   0    0      0
Fiberglass
Laminators and        2002 -
Fabricators           2012     110   120   10   9.1    0.9
Social Scientists
and Related           2002 -
Workers, All Other    2012     110   120   10   9.1    0.9
Broadcast             2002 -
Technicians           2012     110   120   10   9.1    0.9
Camera
Operators,
Television, Video     2002 -
& Motion Pict.        2012     100   120   20   20     1.8
Geological and
Petroleum             2002 -
Technicians           2012     100   120   20   20     1.8
Textile, Apparel, &
Furnishings           2002 -
Workers, All Other    2012     100   120   20   20     1.8
Administrative
Law Judges,
Adjudicators, and     2002 -
Heari                 2012     130   130   0    0      0
                      2002 -
Surgeons              2012     120   130   10   8.3    0.8
Funeral               2002 -
Attendants            2012     120   130   10   8.3    0.8
Food and Tobacco
Roasting, Baking,     2002 -
and Drying Mach       2012     120   130   10   8.3    0.8
Sailors and Marine    2002 -
Oilers                2012     120   130   10   8.3    0.8
Model Makers,         2002 -
Wood                  2012     110   130   20   18.2   1.7
Film and Video        2002 -
Editors               2012     110   130   20   18.2   1.7
Airline Pilots,
Copilots, and         2002 -
Flight Engineers      2012     100   130   30   30     2.7
Chemical              2002 -
Engineers             2012     140   140   0    0      0
Plant and System      2002 -
Operators, All        2012     130   140   10   7.7    0.7


                                                             76
Other

                      2002 -
Actuaries             2012      120          140         20       16.7    1.6
                      2002 -
 Statisticians        2012        120          140         20      16.7   1.6
 Court, Municipal,
 and License           2002 -
 Clerks                2012       120          140         20      16.7   1.6
 Power Plant           2002 -
 Operators             2012       120          140         20      16.7   1.6
 Pesticide Handlers
 Sprayers &            2002 -
 Applicators, Vegi     2012       110          140         30      27.3   2.4
 Other Farming,
 Fishing, and          2002 -
 Forestry Workers      2012       110          140         30      27.3   2.4
 Farming, Fishing,
 and Forestry          2002 -
 Workers, All Other 2012          110          140         30      27.3   2.4
 Crane and Tower       2002 -
 Operators             2012       110          140         30      27.3   2.4
Source: California Labor Market Info, September 2006.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult
.asp?viewAll=yes&viewAllUS=&currentPage=&currentPageUS=&sortUp=&sortDown=
&criteria=Fast+Growing+Occupations&categoryType=employment&geogArea=060400
0059&timeseries=&more=More&menuChoice=localAreaPro&printerFriendly=&BackHi
story=-1&goTOPageText=


EC-L-3:
Orange County Occupations with most job openings
                                           Median
                               Job         Hourly Education &
                               Openings Wage      Training
 Occupational Title            [1]         [2]    Levels [4]
                                                    30-DAY
 Retail Salespersons           25,800      $9.73  OJT (11)
                                                    30-DAY
 Cashiers                      22,810      $8.64  OJT (11)
                                                    30-DAY
 Waiters and Waitresses        21,240      $7.80  OJT (11)
 Combined Food Preparation
 and Serving Workers,                               30-DAY
 Including Fast Food           18,450      $8.06  OJT (11)




                                                                                77
                                                   30-DAY
Office Clerks, General          12,710   $12.77   OJT (11)
Customer Service                                   1-12 MO
Representatives                 10,420   $15.05   OJT (10)
General and Operations                             BA/BS +
Managers                        10,170   $47.82   EXPER (4)
Sales Representatives,
Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except
Technical and Scientific                           1-12 MO
Products                        10,120   $24.95   OJT (10)
Landscaping and                                    30-DAY
Groundskeeping Workers          9,560    $9.39    OJT (11)
Janitors and Cleaners, Except
Maids and Housekeeping                             30-DAY
Cleaners                        9,060    $8.81    OJT (11)
Laborers and Freight, Stock,                       30-DAY
and Material Movers, Hand       8,810    $9.08    OJT (11)
                                                   30-DAY
Teacher Assistants              8,730    [3]      OJT (11)
Elementary School Teachers,                        BA/BS
Except Special Education        8,470    [3]      DEGREE (5)
Receptionists and Information                      30-DAY
Clerks                          7,980    $11.59   OJT (11)
Amusement and Recreation                           30-DAY
Attendants                      7,880    $7.27    OJT (11)
Counter Attendants,
Cafeteria, Food Concession,                         30-DAY
and Coffee Shop                 7,500    $8.23    OJT (11)
                                                    12-MO OJT
Cooks, Restaurant               7,410    $10.12   (9)
                                                    AA
Registered Nurses               7,010    $31.47   DEGREE (6)
                                                    30-DAY
Stock Clerks and Order Fillers 6,690     $10.70   OJT (11)
                                                    12-MO OJT
Carpenters                      6,160    $22.57   (9)
Secondary School Teachers,
Except Special and                                 BA/BS
Vocational Education            6,050    [3]      DEGREE (5)
Executive Secretaries and                          1-12 MO
Administrative Assistants       5,590    $19.93   OJT (10)
                                                   30-DAY
Tellers                         5,460    $11.08   OJT (11)
Bookkeeping, Accounting,                           1-12 MO
and Auditing Clerks             5,300    $16.90   OJT (10)



                                                                78
First-Line
Supervisors/Managers of
Office and Administrative                               WORK
Support Workers                  5,220        $22.54   EXPER (8)
                                                        30-DAY
Security Guards                  5,120        $9.58    OJT (11)
First-Line
Supervisors/Managers of                                  WORK
Retail Sales Workers             4,920        $16.60   EXPER (8)
Computer Software                                        BA/BS
Engineers, Applications          4,880        $31.00   DEGREE (5)
Maintenance and Repair                                   12-MO OJT
Workers, General                 4,710        $15.57   (9)
                                                         BA/BS
Accountants and Auditors         4,640        $27.72   DEGREE (5)
                                                         30-DAY
Food Preparation Workers        4,640         $8.39    OJT (11)
*   March 2003 Benchmark
   N/A - Information is not available.
   Excludes "All Other" categories.

[1] Job openings are the sum of new jobs and net replacements for the total
10 years. Some occupations may have declining employment

     during the projection period due to industry change, however, they have a
substantial number of job openings due to the need for replacements.
     Net Replacement openings are an estimate of the number of job
openings expected because people have permanently left an
     occupation. It estimates the net movement of 1) experienced workers who
leave an occupation and start working in another
     occupation, stop working altogether, or leave the geographic area minus
2) experienced workers who move into such an opening.
     It does not represent the total number of jobs to be filled due to the need
to replace workers.

[2] Median Hourly Wage is the estimated 50th percentile of the distribution
of wages; 50 percent of workers in an occupation
     earn wages below, and 50 percent earn wages above the median wage.
The wages are of the first quarter of 2005.

[3] In occupations where workers do not work full-time, or year-round, it is
not possible to calculate an hourly wage.

[4] Education & Training Levels:
(1) LLD/MD DEGREE=FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREE
(2) PHD DEGREE=DOCTORAL DEGREE



                                                                               79
 (3) MA/MS DEGREE=MASTER'S DEGREE
 (4) BA/BS + EXPER=BACHELOR'S DEGREE OR HIGHER AND SOME
 WORK EXPERIENCE
 (5) BA/BS DEGREE=BACHELOR'S DEGREE
 (6) AA DEGREE=ASSOCIATE DEGREE
 (7) POST-SEC VOC-ED=POST-SECONDARY VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
 (8) WORK EXPER=WORK EXPERIENCE
 (9) 12-MO OJT=LONG-TERM ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING
 (10) 1-12 MO OJT=MODERATE-TERM ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING
 (11) 30-DAY OJT=SHORT-TERM ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING
Source: California Labor Market Info, September 2006.




EC-L-4:
High Wage Occupations in Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine Metro Div

                                         Hourly
Occupation                 Year   Period Mean      25th       Median 75th
Obstetricians and                 1st
Gynecologists              2006   Qtr    N/A       N/A        N/A    N/A
                                  1st
Internists, General        2006   Qtr    $85.62    N/A        N/A    N/A
                                  1st
Chief Executives           2006   Qtr    $83.08    $68.29 N/A        N/A
                                  1st
Surgeons                 2006     Qtr    $80.59    $65.86 N/A        N/A
Family and General                1st
Practitioners            2006     Qtr    $76.17    $61.23 N/A        N/A
Physicians and Surgeons,          1st
All Other                2006     Qtr    $71.60    $45.06 N/A        N/A
                                  1st
Podiatrists                2006   Qtr    $70.16    $53.83 $65.63     N/A
                                  1st
Pediatricians, General     2006   Qtr    $68.83    $51.77 $57.83     N/A
                                  1st
Lawyers                    2006   Qtr    $65.72    $46.16 $61.05     N/A
                                  1st
Physicists                 2006   Qtr    $60.78    $58.72 $64.47     $69.96
                                  1st
Dentists, General          2006   Qtr    $59.66    $48.52 $53.57     $66.88
                                  1st
Sales Managers             2006   Qtr    $57.97    $36.36 $51.96     N/A
Computer and                      1st
Information Systems        2006   Qtr    $56.43    $40.41 $52.54     $68.55



                                                                            80
Managers

Natural Sciences                      1st
Managers                     2006     Qtr      $56.00 $41.90 $53.15        $66.51
                                      1st
Marketing Managers           2006     Qtr      $55.35 $38.02 $50.75        $68.92
                                      1st
Engineering Managers         2006     Qtr      $55.17 $43.91 $52.47        $64.07
General and Operations                1st
Managers                     2006     Qtr      $55.11 $34.14 $48.67        N/A
Human Resources                       1st
Managers, All Other          2006     Qtr      $54.69 $39.18 $51.30        $66.36
                                      1st
Financial Managers           2006     Qtr      $53.90 $37.60 $47.74        $66.75
Computer and
Information Scientists,               1st
Research                     2006     Qtr      $53.42 $45.45 $53.49        $63.17
First-Line Super./Man. of             1st
Police & Detectives          2006     Qtr      $51.21 $46.98 $51.67        $56.36
                                      1st
Psychiatrists                2006     Qtr      $51.18 $38.67 $42.12        $64.80
Public Relations                      1st
Managers                     2006     Qtr      $50.87 $34.92 $47.79        $63.99
Management                            1st
Occupations                  2006     Qtr      $49.64 $30.57 $44.44        $64.27
                                      1st
Legal Occupations            2006     Qtr      $49.33 $28.75 $41.93        $66.88
Training and                          1st
Development Managers         2006     Qtr      $48.48 $36.54 $46.00        $57.68
Physical Scientists, All              1st
Other                        2006     Qtr      $47.98 $28.98 $45.45        $59.25
                                      1st
Managers, All Other          2006     Qtr      $46.21 $35.32 $44.57        $55.67
                                      1st
Pharmacists                  2006     Qtr      $45.69 $45.13 $49.80        $53.93
                                      1st
Sales Engineers           2006        Qtr      $45.37 $27.30 $39.78        $54.45
Administrative Law
Judges, Adjudicators, and             1st
Heari                     2006        Qtr      $45.06 $37.30 $42.78        $51.06
                                      1st
Construction Managers        2006     Qtr      $44.83 $33.73 $41.46        $52.74

Source: California Labor Market Info. September 2006.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult
.asp?viewAll=yes&viewAllUS=&currentPage=&currentPageUS=&sortUp=&sortDown=


                                                                                 81
&criteria=High+Wage+Occupations&categoryType=employment&geogArea=06210420
44&timeseries=&more=More&menuChoice=localAreaPro&printerFriendly=&BackHist
ory=-1&goTOPageText=


EC-L-5:
Low Wage Occupations in Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine Metro Div


                                              Hourly
Occupation                    Year   Period   Mean 25th      Median 75th
                                     1st
Manicurists and Pedicurists   2006   Qtr      $7.99   $7.50 $7.98   $8.46
                                     1st
Dishwashers                   2006   Qtr      $8.01   $7.49 $7.99   $8.49
Dining Room and Cafeteria            1st
Attendants and Bartender      2006   Qtr      $8.16   $7.47 $7.97   $8.47
Host & Hostess,
Restaurant, Lounge &                 1st
Coffee Shop                   2006   Qtr      $8.27   $7.56 $8.12   $8.70
Food Preparation &
Serving Related Workers,             1st
Other                         2006   Qtr      $8.28   $7.48 $8.02   $8.56
Baggage Porters and                  1st
Bellhops                      2006   Qtr      $8.34   $7.54 $8.12   $8.71
                                     1st
Waiters and Waitresses        2006   Qtr      $8.39   $7.50 $8.01   $8.51
                                     1st
Cooks, Fast Food              2006   Qtr      $8.43   $7.59 $8.19   $8.90
                                     1st
Bartenders                    2006   Qtr      $8.53   $7.55 $8.11   $8.67
Counter Attendants,
Cafeteria, Food                      1st
Concession, an                2006   Qtr      $8.64   $7.68 $8.31   $9.22
Farmworkers & Laborers,
Crop, Nursery &                      1st
Greenhouse                    2006   Qtr      $8.64   $7.79 $8.48   $9.34
Maids and Housekeeping               1st
Cleaners                      2006   Qtr      $8.66   $7.68 $8.36   $9.54
Combined Food
Preparation and Serving              1st
Workers, Inc                  2006   Qtr      $8.67   $7.61 $8.17   $8.76
Textile, Apparel, &
Furnishings Workers, All             1st
Other                         2006   Qtr      $8.68   $7.78 $8.44   $9.36
Cleaners of Vehicles and      2006   1st      $8.73   $7.66 $8.27   $9.07


                                                                           82
Equipment                              Qtr
                                       1st
Parking Lot Attendants         2006    Qtr      $8.76    $7.72 $8.34       $9.11
Food Servers,                          1st
Nonrestaurant                  2006    Qtr      $8.83    $7.58 $8.18       $8.80
                                       1st
Sewing Machine Operators       2006    Qtr      $8.85    $7.69 $8.39       $9.70
Textile Bleaching & Dyeing             1st
Machine Op. & Tenders          2006    Qtr      $8.90    $7.85 $8.51       $9.24
                                       1st
Food Preparation Workers       2006    Qtr      $8.95    $7.68 $8.37       $9.80
                                       1st
Service Station Attendants     2006    Qtr      $8.98    $7.68 $8.46       $10.19
Nonfarm Animal                         1st
Caretakers                     2006    Qtr      $9.04    $7.63 $8.23       $9.05
Amusement and                          1st
Recreation Attendants          2006    Qtr      $9.06    $7.91 $8.80       $9.97
Packers and Packagers,                 1st
Hand                           2006    Qtr      $9.07    $7.66 $8.28       $9.21
Textile Winding, Twisting,             1st
and Drawing Out Machine        2006    Qtr      $9.12    $7.97 $8.92       $10.28
Food Preparation and
Serving Related                        1st
Occupations                    2006    Qtr      $9.19    $7.66 $8.32       $9.67
                                       1st
 Crossing Guards                 2006  Qtr        $9.24 $8.20 $9.23        $10.33
 Textile Knitting and
 Weaving Machine Setters,                 1st
 Oper                            2006 Qtr         $9.25 $7.89 $8.59        $10.09
 Cooling &Freezing
 Equipment Operators &                    1st
 Tenders                         2006 Qtr         $9.27 $8.32 $9.33        $10.31
 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning                 1st
 Workers                         2006 Qtr         $9.28 $8.04 $8.94        $10.36
 Cutters and Trimmers,                    1st
 Hand                            2006 Qtr         $9.29 $7.89 $8.62        $9.98
 Pressers, Textile, Garment,              1st
 and Related Materials           2006 Qtr         $9.29 $8.18 $9.27        $10.45
 Ushers, Lobby Attendants,                1st
 and Ticket Takers               2006 Qtr         $9.29 $7.69 $8.36        $9.98
Source: California Labor Market Info. September 2006.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSMoreResult
.asp?viewAll=yes&viewAllUS=&currentPage=&currentPageUS=&sortUp=&sortDown=
&criteria=High+Wage+Occupations&categoryType=employment&geogArea=06210420
44&timeseries=&more=More&menuChoice=localAreaPro&printerFriendly=&BackHist
ory=-1&goTOPageText=


                                                                                83
EC-L-6:
Orange County Profile

Employment and Wages
Unemployment Rate and Labor Force (Not Seasonally Adjusted)          [Top]
                 Time       Labor       No. of    No. of    Unemployment
Area        Year
                 Period     Force       Employed Unemployed Rate
Orange
            2006 Aug        1,607,300 1,550,000 57,200      3.6
County

Employment by Industry (Not Seasonally Adjusted)                                [Top]
                       CES                                                 No. of
Year Time Period
                       Industry Title                                      Employed
2006 Aug               Total Wage and Salary                               1,514,200
2006 Aug               Total Nonfarm                                       1,509,200
2006 Aug               Total Private                                       1,360,400
2006 Aug               Service Providing                                   1,220,500
2006 Aug               Residual-Private Services Providing                 1,071,700


Economic Indicators
Building Permits (US Census Bureau)                                        [Top]
Type of Permit                       Year   Time Period No. of Permits Total Costs
Multi-Family                         2005   Annual      3,040          $388,110,709
Single Family                        2005   Annual      4,103          $1,181,910,133
Total all types construction permits 2005   Annual      7,143          $1,570,020,842

Consumer Price Index (US BLS & Calif. DIR)                                      [Top]
                  Consumer Price Index
Area                                                                      % Change
                  Time Period      2005    Time Period            2004
United States      Annual          195.3 Annual                   188.9   3.4
California         Annual          202.6 Annual                   195.4   3.7

Data for Orange County is not available. Data for California has been displayed for
Consumer Price Index (US BLS & Calif. DIR)

Median Price of Existing Homes Sold (Calif. Assoc. of Realtors)                 [Top]
Year Time Period          Type                                       Median Price
2006 Aug                  Median Price of Homes Sold                 $625,000

State Revenues by Source                                                 [Top]
Tax Type Description                            Year Time Period       Tax Revenue
Alcoholic Beverage Taxes and Fees               2004 Annual            $314,252,000



                                                                                        84
Bank and Corporation (Income) Taxes              2004 Annual           $8,670,065,000
Cigarette Tax                                    2004 Annual           $1,096,224,000
Horse Racing (Parimutuel) License Fees           2004 Annual           $38,491,000
Estate, Inheritance and Gift Taxes               2004 Annual           $213,036,000
Data for Orange County is not available. Data for California has been displayed for State
Revenues by Source

                                                                                 [Top]
Taxable Sales (Calif. Board of Equalization)
Year Time Period            Sales Type Description                Sales
2004 Annual                 Retail                                $51,682,059,000


Population and Census Data
Population                                                [Top]
Area              Year Time Period        Source                               Population
Orange County     2006 Annual             California Dept of Finance           3,072,336

Measures of Income                                                     [Top]
Income Type                           Year Time Period Income           Population
Per Capita Personal Income - BEA      2004 Annual      $41,868          2,982,094
Total Personal Income - BEA           2004 Annual      $124,853,736,000 2,982,094



County-to-County Commute Patterns (US Census Bureau)                                [Top]
     Time                                                              Number of
Year             Area of Residence     Area of WorkPlace
     Period                                                            Workers
                                       Los Angeles County ,
2000 Census      Orange County , CA                                    185,145
                                       CA
                 Los Angeles County ,
2000 Census                            Orange County , CA              160,279
                 CA
2000 Census      Marin County , CA     Orange County , CA              41
2000 Census      Madera County , CA    Orange County , CA              38
2000 Census      Orange County , CA    Lowndes County , AL             14
2000 Census      Jefferson County , AL Orange County , CA              13
2000 Census      Elmore County , AL    Orange County , CA              11
2000 Census      Orange County , CA    Lassen County , CA              8
2000 Census      Orange County , CA    Tuscaloosa County , AL          5
2000 Census      Orange County , CA    Kings County , CA               3

Training Providers in Area                                                [Top]
Provider Name                      Provider Type                         Location
ABC Bartending Schools -           Public Adult Schools with             Rancho
Sacramento Area                    Occupational Programs                 Cordova,CA



                                                                                            85
                                                                     Fountain
Coastline Community College        Community Colleges
                                                                     Valley,CA
Anthony Schools                    Other Education                   Irvine,CA
Alliant International University
                                   Four-Year College or University   Irvine,CA
- Irvin
Anthony Schools of Northern        Private Business and Technical
                                                                     Irvine,CA
California                         Schools

Source: Labormarketinfo.
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/databrowsing/localAreaProfileQSResults.asp
?selectedarea=Orange+County&selectedindex=30&menuChoice=localAreaPro&state=tr
ue&geogArea=0604000059&countyName=

EC-L-7:
Workforce OC 2025: The Economy, Workforce and Demographic Projections.
Presentation of the Orange County Business Council on 10/03/2006.

EC-L-8:
SOCCCD Occupation Report, October 1, 2007. Prepared by the Orange County Business
Council.

EC-L-9:
Occupational Employment Projections 2004-2014 (Orange County). Prepared by the
Orange County Business Council.

EC-L-10:
Occupational Employment Projections 2004-2014, 2011 South OC Demographic Details.
Prepared by the Orange County Business Council.

EC-L-11:
Occupational Employment Projections 2004-2014, Occupational Knowledge, Skills,
Abilities, October 1, 2007. Prepared by the Orange County Business Council.




3. Research Area “Educational Trends”


                         EDUCATIONAL TRENDS
               Environmental Scanning - National, State, and Local

NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TRENDS
ED-N-1:


                                                                                  86
Introduction

With the creation of the original Department of Education in 1867, the Congress declared that it should
"gather statistics and facts on the condition and progress of education in the United States and
Territories."1 The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) currently responds to this mission for the
Department of Education through such publications as The Condition of Education, a mandated report
submitted to Congress on June 1st each year.

Reauthorization of the Center through the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107–279) reaffirms
this mandate. The Act calls upon NCES to release information that is valid, timely, unbiased, and relevant.

Recognizing that reliable data are critical in guiding efforts to improve education in America, The Condition
of Education 2004 presents indicators of important developments and trends in American education.
Recurrent themes underscored by the indicators include participation and persistence in education, student
performance and other outcomes, the environment for learning, and societal support for education. In
addition, this year's volume contains a special analysis that examines changes in undergraduate student
financial aid between 1989–90 and 1999–2000.

This statement summarizes the main findings of the special analysis and the 38 indicators that appear in
the complete volume.


Special Analysis on Paying for College

The 1990s brought rising tuition and fees but also expanded and restructured financial aid programs to
help students pay for college. At the federal level, the 1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act
broadened eligibility for need-based aid, raised loan limits, and made unsubsidized loans available to
students regardless of need. States and institutions increased their grant aid and put more emphasis on
merit as a criterion for awards. As a result, the overall picture of what and how students pay for college
has changed substantially since the early 1990s.

This special analysis uses data from the 1989–90 and 1999–2000 administrations of the National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study to describe some of these changes. It focuses on students who were
enrolled full time and were considered financially dependent on their parents for financial aid purposes. All
dollar amounts were adjusted for inflation.

       Between 1990 and 2000, the average price of attending college (tuition and fees plus an allowance
        for living expenses) increased at public 2-year institutions (from $7,300 to $8,500), at public 4-
        year institutions (from $10,000 to $12,400), and at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (from
        $19,400 to $24,400) (figure A).
       These higher prices, combined with reduced expected family contributions for low- and middle-
        income students and their families resulting from restructuring of the aid programs, meant that
        the average student was eligible for more need-based financial aid in 2000 than in 1990.
       Reflecting this greater need, more students received aid in 2000 than in 1990 (71 vs. 54 percent),
        and the average aided student received more aid ($8,700 vs. $6,200). Financial aid increased for
        all income groups and at all types of institutions.
       Grant aid partly offset the price increases, with the percentage of students receiving grants rising
        from 45 to 57 percent and the average amount received by students with grants increasing from
        $4,200 to $5,400. However, the average net price after taking rants into account (i.e., price minus
        grants) increased at each type of institution. In other words, the growth in grant aid was not
        enough to offset the price increases.
       The average net price after taking grants into account increased for all income groups, except
        those in the lowest income quarter attending public 2-year or private for-profit less-than-4-year
        institutions.
       Reflecting greater need and expanded eligibility for the Stafford loan program, the percentage of
        students who borrowed increased from 30 to 45 percent. In 2000, about half of low-income



                                                                                                    87
       students and 35 percent of high-income students borrowed to help pay for their education. In
       1990, about 46 percent of low-income students and 13 percent of high-income students borrowed.
       Among those who took out loans, the average amount borrowed increased from $3,900 to $6,100.
      After taking into account both grants and loans, the average net price of attending increased for
       full-time dependent undergraduates at public 2-year institutions, remained stable for those at
       public 4-year institutions, and declined for those at private for-profit less-than-4-year institutions.
       The apparent decline at private not-for-profit 4-year institutions was not statistically significant.
      The average net price after grants and loans declined for low-income students, except at public 2-
       year institutions, and increased for high-income students at public 2- and 4-year institutions.


Participation in Education

As the U.S. population increases, so does its enrollment at all levels of education. At the elementary and
secondary levels, growth is due largely to the increase in the size of the school-age population. At the
postsecondary level, both population growth and increasing enrollment rates help explain rising
enrollments. Adult education is also increasing due to demographic shifts in the age of the U.S. population
and increasing rates of enrollment, as influenced by changing employer requirements for skills. As
enrollments have risen, the cohorts of learners—of all ages—have become more diverse than ever before.

      As enrollment of school-age children is compulsory, growth in elementary and secondary schooling
       is primarily the result of the increasing size of the population. At the postsecondary level, both
       population growth and increasing enrollment rates help explain rising enrollments. Between 1970
       and 2002, for example, the enrollment rate of 20- and 21-year-olds increased from 32 to 48
       percent.
      Thirty-five percent of public elementary schools had prekindergarten programs in 2000–01,
       serving over 800,000 children. Schools in the Southeast were more likely to have prekindergarten
       programs and full-day programs than schools in other regions of the country. Public schools with
       large enrollments (700 or more students) and schools in central cities were more likely than other
       schools to offer prekindergarten classes.
      Enrollment among 4- to 6-year-olds in kindergarten increased from 3.2 million in 1977 to 4 million
       in 1992 before decreasing to 3.7 million in 2001. During this period, the proportion of students
       enrolled in full-day programs increased, and by 1995, it was larger than the proportion enrolled in
       half-day programs.
      Rising immigration and a 25 percent increase in the number of annual births that began in the
       1970s and peaked in the mid-1970s have boosted school enrollment. Public elementary and
       secondary enrollment reached an estimated 48.0 million in 2003 and is projected to increase to an
       all-time high of 49.7 million in 2013. The West will experience the largest increase in enrollment of
       all regions in the country.
      In 2003, Black and Hispanic 4th-graders were more likely than White 4th-graders to be in high-
       poverty schools (measured by the percentage of students eligible for a subsidized lunch) and less
       likely to be in low-poverty schools. The same is also true by school location: Black and Hispanic
       students were more likely than White students to be concentrated in the highest poverty schools in
       central city, urban fringe, and rural areas in 2003.
      In the next 10 years, undergraduate enrollment is projected to increase. Enrollment in 4-year
       institutions is projected to increase at a faster rate than in 2-year institutions, and women's
       enrollment is expected to increase at a faster rate than men's. The number of part- and full-time
       students, those enrolled at 2- and 4-year institutions, and male and female undergraduates are
       projected to reach a new high each year from 2004 to 2013.
      Forty percent of the population age 16 and above participated in some work-related adult
       education in 2002–03. The most common types of programs were formal work-related courses (33
       percent) and college or university degree programs for work-related reasons (9 percent).
       Educational attainment was positively associated with participating in adult education for work-
       related reasons.

Figure A. Average net price, grants, loans, and total price (in 1999 constant dollars) for full-
time, full-year dependent undergraduates, by type of institution: 1989–90 and 1999–2000




                                                                                                     88
*Represents statistically significant change from 1989–90.

NOTE: Averages computed for all students, including those who did not receive financial aid. Detail may not sum to totals
because of rounding.

SOURCE: Wei, C.C., Li, X., and Berkner, L. (2004). A Decade of Undergraduate Student Aid: 1989–90 to 1999–2000 (NCES
2004–158), tables A-1.2, A-2.2, A-3.2, A-4.2, A-1.6, A-2.6, A-3.6, A-4.6, A-1.10, A-2.10, A-3.10, A-4.10. Data from U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 and 1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid
Study (NPSAS:90 and NPSAS:2000). (Originally published as figure 10 on p. 24 of the complete report from which this article is
excerpted.)




                                                                                                                     89
Learner Outcomes

How well does the American educational system—and its students—perform? Data from national and
international assessments can help answer this question, as can data on adults' educational and work
experiences, health, and earnings later in life. In some areas, such as reading, mathematics, and writing,
the performance of elementary and secondary students has improved over the past decade, but not in all
grades assessed and not equally for all students. Long-term effects of education, such as on the health
and earnings of adults, help underscore the importance of education and the outcomes of different levels
of educational attainment.

      According to data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, children without family risk factors,
       such as poverty, start kindergarten with higher performance and experience a larger gain in
       reading and mathematics scale scores through 3rd grade than students with 1 or more family risk
       factors. From the beginning of kindergarten in fall 1998 through the end of 3rd grade in spring
       2002, children with no family risk factors had an average gain of 84 points in reading, compared
       with a 73-point gain among children with 2 or more family risk factors; the respective gains in
       mathematics were 65 and 57 points (figure B).
      The average reading scale scores of 8th-graders assessed by the National Assessment of
       Educational Progress (NAEP) increased between 1992 and 2003, while no difference was detected
       for 4th-graders. The percentages of 4th- and 8th-graders performing at or above the Proficient
       level, defined as "solid academic performance for each grade assessed," were higher in 2003 than
       in 1992. Among 12th-graders, average scores were lower in 2002 than in 1992 and 1998.
      The average writing scale scores of 4th- and 8th-graders assessed by NAEP improved between
       1998 and 2002. Twenty-eight percent of 4th-graders, 31 percent of 8th-graders, and 24 percent of
       12th-graders performed at or above the Proficient level in 2002.
      The average mathematics scale scores of 4th- and 8th-graders assessed by NAEP increased
       steadily from 1990 to 2003. For both grades, the average scale scores in 2003 were higher than in
       all previous assessments, and the percentages of students performing at or above the Proficient
       level and at the Advanced level, defined as "superior performance," were higher in 2003 than in
       1990. Thirty-two percent of 4th-graders and 29 percent of 8th-graders were at or above the
       Proficient level.

In addition to indicators on students' academic achievement, there are also some indicators on the long-
term outcomes of education.

      The better educated a person is, the more likely that person is to report being in "excellent" or
       "very good" health, regardless of income. Among adults age 25 and above, 78 percent of those
       with a bachelor's degree or higher reported being in excellent or very good health in 2001,
       compared with 66 percent of those with some education beyond high school, 56 percent of high
       school completers, and 39 percent of those with less than a high school education.
      In 2003, 13 percent of all persons ages 16–24 were neither enrolled in school nor working, a
       decrease from 16 percent in 1986. The gap between the percentage of poor youth and others
       neither enrolled nor working decreased over the period. The percentages of White and
       Asian/Pacific Islander youth neither enrolled nor working in 2003 were lower than the percentages
       of Hispanic, Black, and American Indian youth. In addition, the percentage of Hispanic youth
       neither enrolled nor working was lower than the percentages of Black and American Indian youth.
      The earnings of young adults with at least a bachelor's degree increased over the past 20 years
       relative to their counterparts with a high school diploma or General Educational Development
       (GED) certificate. Among men, the difference in median earnings rose from 19 percent in 1980 to
       65 percent in 2002, while among women, the difference increased from 34 percent to 71 percent.

Figure B. Children's reading and mathematics scale scores for fall 1998 first-time
kindergartners from kindergarten through 3rd grade, by family risk factors: Fall 1998, spring
1999, spring 2000, and spring 20021




                                                                                                  90
1
 Family risk factors include living below the poverty level, primary home language was non-English, mother's highest education
was less than a high school diploma/GED, and living in a single-parent household, as measured in kindergarten.

NOTE: The findings are based on children who entered kindergarten for the first time in fall 1998 and were assessed in fall
1998, spring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2002. Estimates reflect the sample of children assessed in English in all assessment
years (approximately 19 percent of Asian children and approximately 30 percent of Hispanic children were not assessed). The
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K) was not administered in spring 2001, when most
of the children were in 2nd grade. Although most of the sample was in 3rd grade in spring 2002, 10 percent were in 2nd grade
and about 1 percent were enrolled in other grades.

SOURCE: Rathbun, A, and West, J. (2004). From Kindergarten Through Third Grade: Children's Beginning School Experiences
(NCES 2004–007), tables A-4 and A-5. Data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), Longitudinal Kindergarten–First Grade Public-Use data
file and Third Grade Restricted-Use data file, fall 1998, spring 1999, spring 2000, and spring 2002. (Originally published as the
Early Reading and Mathematics Performance figure on p. 48 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)



Student Effort and Educational Progress

Many factors are associated with school success, persistence, and progress toward high school graduation
or a college degree. These include student motivation and effort, the expectations of students,
encouragement from others, and learning opportunities, as well as various student characteristics, such as
sex and family income. Monitoring these factors in relation to the progress of different groups of students
through the educational system and tracking students' attainment are important for knowing how well we
are doing as a nation in education.

        The proportion of 10th-graders who expected to complete a bachelor's as their highest degree
         nearly doubled between 1980 and 2002, and the proportion who intended to earn a graduate
         degree more than doubled. Rising aspirations were also notable among students from families with
         low socioeconomic status: about 13 percent of such students intended to earn a bachelor's degree
         in 1980, but this figure had tripled by 2002.
        During the 1970s and 1980s, "event dropout rates," which measure the proportion of students
         who drop out of high school each year, declined. However, event dropout rates remained
         unchanged during the 1990s on average and for students from low-, middle-, and high-income
         families.
        First-time entry rates into programs that lead to a bachelor's or higher degree increased from
         1998 to 2001 in many countries that were members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation
         and Development (OECD). In 2001, the U.S. rate was lower than the OECD country average.
        Despite assistance offered through remediation, students enrolled in remediation are less likely to




                                                                                                                       91
            earn a postsecondary degree or certificate. The need for remedial reading appears to be the most
            serious barrier to degree completion: 12th-graders in 1992 who took remedial reading at the
            postsecondary level were about half as likely as those who took no remedial courses to have
            earned a degree or certificate by 2000.
           While bachelor's degree completion rates have been steady over time, the likelihood of still being
            enrolled with no degree at the end of 5 years has increased. When comparing students who
            enrolled in a 4-year college or university for the first time in 1989–90 with those who began in
            1995–96, 53 percent of both cohorts had completed a bachelor's degree within 5 years; however,
            the later cohort was more likely to have no degree but still be enrolled and also less likely to have
            left college without a degree.

Women have earned more than half of all bachelor's degrees every year since 1981–82. They still trail
men in certain fields but have made substantial gains since 1970–71 at both the undergraduate (table A)
and graduate levels.
Table A. Percentage of bachelor’s degrees earned by women and change in the percentage
earned by women from 1970–71 to 2001–02, by field of study: 1970–71, 1984–85, and 2001–
02
                                                                             Change in percentage points
                                                  1970-      1984-   2001-   1970-71 to 1984-85 to 1970-71 to
Field of study                                    71         85      02      1984-85    2001-02    2001-02
Total1                                            43.4       50.7    57.4    7.4             6.7             14.1
Health professions and related sciences 77.1                 84.9    85.5    7.8             0.6             8.4
Education                                         74.5       75.9    77.4    1.3             1.5             2.9
English language and literature/letters           65.6       65.9    68.6    0.3             2.7             3.0
Visual and performing arts                        59.7       62.1    59.4    2.4             -2.7            -0.3
Psychology                                        44.4       68.2    77.5    23.7            9.3             33.1
Social sciences and history                       36.8       44.1    51.7    7.3             7.6             14.9
Communications                                    35.3       59.1    63.5    23.8            4.4             28.2
Biological sciences/life sciences                 29.1       47.8    60.8    18.7            13.0            31.7
Business                                          9.1        45.1    50.0    36.0            4.9             40.9
Mathematics                                       37.9       46.2    46.7    8.3             0.5             8.8
Physical sciences                                 13.8       28.0    42.2    14.2            14.2            28.4
Computer and information sciences                 13.6       36.8    27.6    23.2            -9.2            14.0
Agriculture and natural resources                 4.2        31.1    45.9    26.9            14.8            41.6
Engineering                                       0.8        13.1    20.7    12.3            7.6             19.9

1
    Includes other fields not shown separately.

NOTE: Based on data from all degree-granting institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics 2002
(NCES 2003–060), tables 246, 276–297, and (forthcoming) Digest of Education Statistics 2003 (NCES 2004–024), tables 265,
268, and 271. Data from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1969–86 Higher Education
General Information Survey (HEGIS), "Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred" and 1987–2002 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, "Completions Survey" (IPEDS-C:87–02), fall 2002. (Originally published as the Bachelor's Degrees table
on p. 65 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)




Contexts of Elementary and Secondary Education

The school environment is shaped by many factors, including the courses offered in the school and taken




                                                                                                                    92
by students, the instructional methods used by teachers, students' opportunities to attend a "chosen"
public school, the role of school staff in providing various support services to students, the extent to which
teachers are teaching in their field, and the characteristics of school principals and their influence over
school governance. Monitoring these and other factors provides a better understanding of the conditions
in schools that influence education.

       Since the early 1980s, the percentage of high school graduates completing advanced coursework
        in science and mathematics has increased. Between 1982 and 2000, the percentage who had
        completed advanced courses in science increased from 35 to 63 percent, and the percentage who
        had completed advanced courses in mathematics increased from 26 to 45 percent.
       Among high school graduates in 2000, Asian/Pacific Islander and private school graduates
        completed advanced levels of science and mathematics coursework at higher rates than their
        peers. Females were more likely than males to have completed some advanced science
        coursework and to have completed level II advanced academic mathematics courses (i.e.,
        precalculus or an introduction to analysis).
       According to findings from the 1999 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
        Video Study—which examined 8th-grade science lessons in Australia, the Czech Republic, Japan,
        the Netherlands, and the United States—46 percent of U.S. 8th-grade science lessons had
        students conduct experiments or other practical activities, while 31 percent had students collect
        and report data from those activities.
       In 1999–2000, high school students in high-minority schools and high-poverty schools (measured
        by the percentage of students eligible for a subsidized lunch) were more often taught English,
        science, and mathematics by "out-of-field" teachers (i.e., teachers who have neither a major nor
        certification in the subject they teach) than their peers in low-minority and low-poverty schools
        (figure C).
       The percentage of students in grades 1–12 whose parents enrolled them in a "chosen" public
        school (i.e., a public school other than their assigned public school) increased from 11 to 15
        percent between 1993 and 2003. In the same period, the percentage of children attending private
        schools also increased (.9 percentage points for private, church-related schools and .8 percentage
        points for private, non-church-related schools). In addition, in 2003, parents of 24 percent of
        students reported that they moved to a neighborhood so that their children could attend a
        particular school.
       Principals' perceptions of their own influence over a number of school governance functions vary
        by the control of the school. In 1999–2000, private elementary and secondary school principals
        were more likely than their public school counterparts to report a high degree of influence over
        establishing curriculum, setting disciplinary policies, and setting performance standards for
        students.
       The goals that guidance programs in public high schools emphasize vary according to the size and
        location of the school. For example, in 2002, the smallest schools were more likely than larger
        schools to report that their primary emphasis was on helping students prepare for postsecondary
        schooling, while the largest schools were more likely to emphasize helping students with their
        high school academic achievement. Schools located in a central city or an urban fringe area were
        more likely than rural schools to make helping students with their academic achievement the
        primary emphasis.
       At the elementary and secondary school levels, most schools have staff who provide various
        support services directly to students (e.g., counselors, social workers, speech therapists, and
        instructional and noninstructional aides). In 1999–2000, the most common student support staff
        in public elementary and secondary schools were school counselors, speech therapists, school
        nurses, and special education aides, each of which were found in 79 percent or more of schools.


Contexts of Postsecondary Education

The postsecondary education system encompasses various types of institutions, both public and private.
Although issues of student access, persistence, and attainment have been predominant concerns in
postsecondary education, the contexts in which postsecondary education takes place matter as well. The
diversity of the undergraduate and graduate populations, the various educational missions and learning
environments of colleges and universities, the courses that students take, the modes of learning that are



                                                                                                     93
employed, and the ways in which colleges and universities attract and use faculty and other resources all
are important aspects of the contexts of postsecondary education.

        Students age 24 and above represented 43 percent of all undergraduates in 1999–2000, and 82
         percent of these students worked while enrolled. Many older undergraduates were employees
         first, focusing primarily on their jobs, and students second. Those whose primary focus was on
         their employment were less likely to complete their postsecondary programs than were older
         students who worked primarily to meet their educational expenses.
        The list of the top 30 postsecondary courses, which reports the subjects that students study the
         most in college (and which is referred to as the "empirical core curriculum"), has remained
         relatively stable over the past three decades. Among bachelor's degree recipients who graduated
         from high school in 1972, 1982, and 1992, each cohort earned about one-third of its credits from
         the top 30 postsecondary courses for the cohort. For the 1992 cohort, the top 30 list for students
         attending highly selective institutions included a concentration of engineering and humanities
         courses and courses with an international theme, a pattern not present for students in selective
         and nonselective institutions.
        Postsecondary institutions provided remedial coursework for 28 percent of entering freshmen in
         fall 2000 (22 percent undertook remediation in mathematics, 14 percent in writing, and 11
         percent in reading). Public 2-year colleges provided such coursework for 42 percent of their
         entering students.
        In 2000–01, 56 percent of all postsecondary institutions offered distance education courses, up
         from 34 percent 3 years earlier. The number of course enrollments in distance education also
         increased, nearly doubling between 1997–98 and 2000–01; by 2000–01, about half of these
         enrollments were at public 2-year institutions.

Figure C. Percentage of public high school students taught selected subjects by teachers
without certification or a major in the field they teach, by minority concentration and school
poverty: 1999–2000




NOTE: "Major" refers to a teacher's primary fields of study for a bachelor's, master's, doctorate, first-professional, or education
specialist degree. "Major field" can be an academic or education major. "High minority" refers to schools in which 75 percent or
more of their enrollments are minority students; "low minority" refers to schools with a minority enrollment of less than 10
percent. "High poverty" refers to a school in which 75 percent or more of students are eligible to participate in the federal free
or reduced-price lunch program, a common proxy measure of poverty; "low poverty" refers to schools in which less than 10
percent of students are eligible to participate in this program.




                                                                                                                        94
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), 1999–
2000, "Public School Survey" and "Public Charter School Survey." (Originally published as the Out-of-Field Teachers figure on
p. 73 of the complete report from which this article is excerpted.)



Societal Support for Learning

Society and its members—families, individuals, employers, and governmental and private organizations—
provide support for education in various ways. This support includes learning activities that take place
outside schools and colleges as well as the financial support for learning inside schools and colleges.
Parents contribute to the education of their children in the home through reading with young children,
setting aside a time and place for schoolwork, and seeing that assignments are completed. Communities
impart learning and values through various modes, both formal and informal. Financial investments in
education are made both by individuals in the form of income spent on their own education (or the
education of their children) and by the public in the form of public appropriations for education. These
investments in education are made at all levels of the education system. Other collective entities, such as
employers and other kinds of organizations, also invest in various forms of education for their members.

        In 2001, 50 percent of children in kindergarten through 8th grade were enrolled in a variety of
         nonparental care arrangements after school, most commonly center- or school-based programs,
         relative care, and self-care. Black children were more likely than White and Hispanic children to
         participate in nonparental care.
        Thirty-eight percent of children in kindergarten through 8th grade participated in one or more
         organized activities after school in 2001. Children in 3rd through 5th grade and 6th through 8th
         grade were more likely to participate than children in kindergarten through 2nd grade. Parents of
         19 percent of these children reported using activities to cover hours when adult supervision was
         needed for their children.
        Total expenditures per public elementary and secondary school student, adjusted for inflation,
         increased by 25 percent between 1991–92 and 2000–01. The largest increases occurred in
         midsize cities and rural areas.
        In 2000, expenditures per student for the OECD member countries averaged $5,162 at the
         combined elementary/secondary level and $9,509 at the post-secondary level. The United States
         and Switzerland, two of the world's wealthiest nations, ranked highest in expenditures per student
         at the elementary/secondary and postsecondary levels. Wealthy countries such as the United
         States spent more on education, and a larger share of their gross domestic product (GDP) per
         capita on education, than less wealthy nations.
        The percentage of full-time undergraduates receiving institutional aid and the average amount
         awarded increased at 4-year institutions during the 1990s. In 1992–93, some 17 percent of full-
         time undergraduates at public institutions and 47 percent at private not-for-profit institutions
         received institutional aid; by 1999–2000, the respective proportions had increased to 23 and 58
         percent. During this period, the average award increased from $2,200 to $2,700 at public
         institutions and from $5,900 to $7,000 at private not-for-profit institutions.
        Those who had received bachelor's degrees in 1999–2000 were more likely than their 1992–93
         counterparts to have borrowed to pay for their undergraduate education (65 vs. 49 percent), and
         if they had done so, to have borrowed larger amounts, on average ($19,300 vs. $12,100 in
         constant 1999 dollars). However, the median "debt burden" (monthly payment as a percentage of
         monthly salary) a year later did not change.


Conclusion

Trends in the condition of American education continue to show promise and challenge, as well as
underscore the importance of schooling. In reading, the performance of U.S. 8th-graders has increased
since 1992, and higher percentages of 4th- and 8th-graders are scoring at or above the Proficient level.
Yet the overall reading achievement of 12th-graders has decreased. In mathematics, the performance of
4th- and 8th-graders has risen steadily since 1990. In writing, the performance of 4th- and 8th-graders
improved between 1998 and 2002, and in the later year, about one-quarter of 4th-, 8th-, and 12th-



                                                                                                                    95
graders were at or above the Proficient level.

The poverty level of students and their schools presents a challenge to students' educational progress and
achievement. Children with family risk factors, such as poverty, start kindergarten with fewer reading and
mathematics skills and end 3rd grade with smaller gains. In the early part of this decade, high school
students living in low-income families dropped out of school at six times the rate of their peers from high-
income families.

The proportion of kindergarten students enrolled in full-day programs has risen since the late 1970s, and
by 1995 exceeded that of students enrolled in half-day programs. In elementary and secondary
education, enrollments have followed population shifts, and in the coming decade are projected to remain
fairly steady and then climb to an all-time high of 49.7 million in 2013. The current trends toward greater
diversity in the racial/ethnic composition of the student population are expected to continue. In addition,
the proportion of 10th-graders expecting to complete a bachelor's as their highest degree has nearly
doubled since 1980 and the proportion expecting to earn a graduate degree has more than doubled, with
the potential of higher educational attainment in the years ahead.

In the past 30 years, rates of enrollment in postsecondary education have increased and are projected to
continue to do so in the next decade. At the undergraduate and graduate levels, enrollments have grown
faster among women than men. In the next decade, full-time undergraduate enrollment is expected to
increase faster than part-time enrollment, and enrollment in 4-year institutions faster than in 2-year
institutions. In recent years, the number of course enrollments in distance education has nearly doubled,
and continued growth is expected. Also, about one-third of undergraduates are now older students who
combine school and work, and many of them characterize themselves as employees first and students
second.

Paralleling the growth in postsecondary education, participation in adult education has increased as well.
Many adults participate in adult education for work-related purposes, and in 2002–03, 40 percent of all
persons age 16 and above did so.

NCES produces an array of reports each month that present findings about the U.S. education system.
The Condition of Education 2004 is the culmination of a yearlong project. It includes data that were
available by early April 2004. In the coming months, many other reports and surveys informing us about
education will be released, including the baseline year for a new longitudinal study tracking the
development and early childhood experiences of very young children; the 3rd-grade follow-up to the
kindergarten cohort study; international assessments; and the first year of a new longitudinal study of
high school students. As is true of the indicators in this volume, these surveys and reports will continue to
inform Americans about the condition of education.

Reference
Snyder, T.D. (Ed.) (1993). 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait (NCES 93–442). U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.


Footnotes

1
 In 1869, the name of the new department was changed to the Office of Education and it was moved to the Department of the
Interior (Snyder 1993).




        Data sources: Many studies from NCES and other sources.




                                                                                                                96
 For technical information, see the complete report:


 National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004–077).


 For questions about content, contact John Wirt (john.wirt@ed.gov).


 To obtain the complete report (NCES 2004–077), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877-433-7827),
 visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch), or contact GPO (202-512-1800).



Source: The Condition of Education 2004. Vol 6, Issues 1 & 2, Topic: Crosscutting
Statistics. By: National Center for Education Statistics

ED-N-2:
Projections of Education Statistics to 2015
Description: This publication provides projections for key education statistics. It includes
statistics on enrollment, graduates, teachers, and expenditures in elementary and
secondary schools, and enrollment, earned degrees conferred, and current-fund
expenditures of degree-granting institutions. For the Nation, the tables, figures, and text
contain data on enrollment, teachers, graduates, and expenditures for the past 14 years
and projections to the year 2015. For the 50 States and the District of Columbia, the
tables, figures, and text contain data on projections of public elementary and secondary
enrollment and public high school graduates to the year 2015. In addition, the report
includes a methodology section describing models and assumptions used to develop
national and state-level projections.

Source: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics.
Institute of Education Sciences. Publication #: NCES 2006084. September 2006
Authors: William J. Hussar, National Center for Education Statistics Tabitha M. Bailey
Global Insight, Inc.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006084


ED-N-3:
Question:
Is participation in adult learning increasing?

Response:
The percentage of the population age 16 or older participating in adult education
increased from 1995 to 2001 and then declined in 2005. Work-related courses and
personal interest courses were the most popular forms of adult education in 2005.

Adult education activities are formal activities including basic skills training,
apprenticeships, work-related courses, personal interest courses, English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes, and part-time college or university degree programs. Overall
participation in adult education among individuals age 16 or older increased from 40
percent in 1995 to 46 percent in 2001 and then declined to 44 percent in 2005.


                                                                                                      97
Participation rates varied by sex, age, race/ethnicity, employment/occupation, and
education. For example, a greater percentage of females than males participated in
personal interest courses (24 vs. 18 percent) and work-related activities (29 vs. 25
percent). Individuals ages 16–24 had a higher overall participation rate in adult education
activities than their counterparts age 55 or older. Blacks and Whites had higher rates of
overall participation in adult education than their Hispanic peers. Among those employed
in the past 12 months, the overall participation rate in adult education was higher for
those in a professional or managerial occupation (70 percent) than for those employed in
service, sales, or support jobs (48 percent) or those in trade occupations (34 percent). In
addition, the overall participation rate in adult education for bachelor’s degree recipients
or higher was greater than for those individuals who had some college or less education.

Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 352. Participants in adult basic and
secondary education programs, by type of program and state or jurisdiction: Selected
fiscal years, 1990 through 2004
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 353. Participation of employed persons,
17 years old and over, in career-related adult education during the previous 12 months, by
selected characteristics of participants: 1995, 1999, and 2003
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 354. Participation of persons, 17 years
old and over, in adult education during the previous 12 months, by selected
characteristics of participants: Selected years, 1991 through 2003

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Participation in Adult Education for Work-Related Reasons: 2002-03
2004, Participation in Adult Education and Lifelong Learning: 2000-01
2003, Participation in Technology-Based Postcompulsory Education
2002, Participation Trends and Patterns in Adult Education: 1991 to 1999
2002, Programs for Adults in Public Library Outlets
2002, The Persistence of Employees Who Pursue College Study

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). The Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071), Indicator 11.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=89


ED-N-4:
Question:
How long does it take students at colleges and universities to complete their degrees?

Response:
On average, first-time recipients of bachelor's degrees in 1999–2000 who had not stopped
out of college for 6 months or more took about 55 months from first enrollment to degree
completion. Graduates who had attended multiple institutions took longer to complete a
degree. For example, those who attended only one institution averaged 51 months



                                                                                         98
between postsecondary entry and completion of a bachelor's degree, compared with 59
months for those who attended two institutions and 67 months for those who attended
three or more institutions. This pattern was found among graduates of both public and
private not-for-profit institutions.

Students who begin at public 2-year institutions must transfer to another institution in
order to complete a 4-year degree. Students who did so took about a year and one-half
longer to complete a bachelor's degree than students who began at public 4-year
institutions (71 vs. 55 months), and almost 2 years longer than those who began at private
not-for-profit 4-year institutions (50 months). The type of institution from which
graduates received a degree was also related to time to degree: graduates of public
institutions averaged about 6 months longer to complete a degree than graduates of
private not-for-profit institutions (57 vs. 51 months).

Other factors are also related to time to degree completion. As parents' education
increases, the average time to degree completion decreases. In addition, as age and length
of time between high school graduation and postsecondary entry increases, time to degree
completion also increases. Higher grade-point averages were associated with a shorter
time to degree completion among graduates of public institutions, but not among
graduates of private not-for-profit institutions.


Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 310. Percentage distribution of
enrollment and completion status of first-time postsecondary students starting during the
1995-96 academic year, by type of institution and other student characteristics: 2001
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 8. Percentage of persons age 25 and
over and 25 to 29, by race/ethnicity, years of school completed, and sex: Selected years,
1910 through 2005
2005, The Condition of Education 2005: Postsecondary participation and attainment
among traditional-age students
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Remediation and degree completion
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Trends in undergraduate persistence and
completion
2003, The Condition of Education 2003: Institutional retention and student persistence at
4-Year institutions

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2004, College Persistence on the Rise? Changes in 5-Year Degree Completion and
Postsecondary Persistence Rates Between 1994 and 2000
2002, Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six Years
Later
2002, Short-Term Enrollment in Postsecondary Education: Student Background and
Institutional Differences in Reasons for Early Departure, 1996–98
2002, The Persistence of Employees Who Pursue College Study




                                                                                        99
2001, Bridging the Gap: Academic Preparation and Postsecondary Success of First-
Generation Students
2001, High School Academic Curriculum and the Persistence Path Through College:
Persistence and Transfer Behavior of Undergraduates 3 Years After Entering 4-Year
Institutions

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2003). The Condition of Education 2003 (NCES 2003-067), Indicator 21.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40


ED-N-5:
Question:
What is the percentage of degrees conferred by sex and race?

Response:
Women continued to earn more degrees than men in academic year 2002–03, about 58
percent of all degrees. Women earned 60 percent of all associate’s degrees, 58 percent of
all bachelor’s degrees, and 59 percent of all master’s degrees.

About two-thirds (67 percent) of all degrees conferred during the 2002–03 academic year
went to White, non-Hispanic students; 22 percent to members of groups other than
Whites (includes Black, non-Hispanics, Hispanics, Asians/Pacific Islanders, and
American Indians/Alaska Natives); and the remainder to nonresident aliens (5 percent) or
individuals whose race/ethnicity was unknown (5 percent).

The proportion of degrees awarded to members of groups other than Whites was highest
at the associate’s level, with 27 percent of all degrees. These students also were awarded
22 percent of bachelor’s degrees, 17 percent of master’s degrees, 14 percent of doctor’s
degrees, and 24 percent of first-professional degrees.

Nonresident aliens received 14 percent of all master’s degrees and 25 percent of all
doctor’s degrees, much higher proportions than of any group other than White, non-
Hispanics.

Women earned about two-thirds (67 percent) of degrees granted to Black, non-Hispanics,
63 percent of degrees granted to American Indians/Alaska Natives, 61 percent of degrees
granted to Hispanics, 58 percent of degrees granted to White, non-Hispanics, and 55
percent of degrees granted to Asians/Pacific Islanders.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and Degrees and Other
Awards Conferred: 2002-03 (NCES 2005-154).


Degrees conferred and percentage distribution by Title IV degree-granting institutions,



                                                                                       100
by level of degree, sex, and race/ethnicity: United States, academic year 2002-03
                 Total             Bachelor's           Master's         Doctor's1
Sex and
race/ethnicity             Percent              Percent         Percent         Percent
                 Number    of total Number      of total Number of total Number of total
All
institutions     2,620,894 100.0   1,348,503 100.0      512,645 100.0    46,024 100.0
Sex
Men              1,103,695 42.1    573,079      42.5    211,381 41.2     24,341 52.9
Women            1,517,199 57.9    775,424      57.5    301,264 58.8     21,683 47.1
Race/ethnicity
White, non-
Hispanic         1,751,927 66.8    943,745      70.0    309,055 60.3     25,863 56.2
Black, non-
Hispanic         237,615   9.1     117,774      8.7     40,046 7.8       2,362      5.1
Hispanic         175,290   6.7     84,333       6.3     22,560 4.4       1,457      3.2
Asian/Pacific
Islander      150,438      5.7     83,232       6.2     24,513 4.8       2,259      4.9
American
Indian/Alaska
Native        19,764       0.8     9,314        0.7     2,574      0.5   185        0.4
Race/ethnicity
unknown        144,017     5.5     66,866       5.0     42,315 8.3       2,272      4.9
Nonresident
alien            141,843   5.4     43,239       3.2     71,582 14.0      11,626 25.3
1
 Doctor's degrees are considered the highest award a student can earn for graduate study.
The doctor's degree classification includes such degrees as Doctor of Education, Doctor
of Juridical Science, Doctor of Public Health, and the Doctor of Philosophy degree in any
field such as agronomy, food technology, education, engineering, public administration,
ophthalmology, or radiology.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and Degrees and
Other Awards Conferred: 2002-03 (NCES 2005-154).
Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2004, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Table 261. Associate degrees conferred by
degree-granting institutions, by racial/ethnic group and sex of student: Selected years,
1976-77 to 2001-02
2004, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Table 264. Bachelor's degrees conferred by
degree-granting institutions, by racial/ethnic group and sex of student: Selected years,
1976-77 to 2001-02




                                                                                          101
2004, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Table 267. Master's degrees conferred by
degree-granting institutions, by racial/ethnic group and sex of student: Selected years,
1976-77 to 2001-02
2004, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Table 270. Doctor's degrees conferred by
degree-granting institutions, by racial/ethnic group and sex of student: Selected years,
1976-77 to 2001-02
2004, Digest of Education Statistics 2003, Table 273. First-professional degrees
conferred by degree-granting institutions, by racial/ethnic group and sex of student:
Selected years, 1976-77 to 2001-02
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Degrees earned by women

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2004, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls & Women: 2004
2003, Status and Trends in the Education of Blacks
2003, Status and Trends in the Education of Hispanics
2001, Competing Choices: Men's and Women's Paths After Earning a Bachelor's Degree
2001, Educational Achievement and Black-White Inequality
2000, Entry and Persistence of Women and Minorities in College Science and
Engineering Education


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003 and Degrees and
Other Awards Conferred: 2002-03 (NCES 2005-154).
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72


Question:
Do you have information on college enrollment?
Response:
Enrollment in degree-granting institutions increased by 17 percent between 1984 and
1994. Between 1994 and 2004, enrollment increased at a faster rate (21 percent), from
14.3 million to 17.3 million. Much of the growth between 1994 and 2004 was in female
enrollment; the number of men enrolled rose 16 percent, while the number of women
increased by 25 percent. During the same time period, part-time enrollment rose by 8
percent compared to an increase of 30 percent in full-time enrollment. In addition to the
enrollment in accredited 2-year colleges, 4-year colleges, and universities, about 429,000
students attended non-degree-granting, Title IV eligible,1 postsecondary institutions in
fall 2003.
The number of young students has been growing more rapidly than the number of older
students, but this pattern is expected to shift. Between 1990 and 2004, the enrollment of
students under age 25 increased by 31 percent. Enrollment of persons 25 and over rose by
17 percent during the same period. From 2004 to 2014, NCES projects a rise of 11
percent in enrollments of persons under 25, and an increase of 15 percent in the number
25 and over.



                                                                                           102
   Enrollment trends have differed at the undergraduate, graduate, and first professional
   levels. Undergraduate enrollment generally increased during the 1970s, but dipped
   slightly between 1983 and 1985. From 1985 to 1992, undergraduate enrollment increased
   each year, rising 18 percent before declining slightly and stabilizing between 1993 and
   1996. Undergraduate enrollment rose 20 percent between 1996 and 2004. Graduate
   enrollment had been steady at about 1.3 million in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but
   rose about 57 percent between 1985 and 2004. After rising very rapidly during the 1970s,
   enrollment in first professional programs stabilized in the 1980s. First-professional
   enrollment began rising again in the 1990s and showed an increase of 14 percent between
   1994 and 2004.
   Since 1984, the number of women in graduate schools has exceeded the number of men.
   Between 1994 and 2004, the number of male full-time graduate students increased by 25
   percent, compared to 66 percent for full-time women. Among part-time graduate
   students, the number of men increased by 3 percent compared to a 17 percent increase for
   women.
   The proportion of American college students who are minorities has been increasing. In
   1976, some 15 percent were minorities, compared with 30 percent in 2004. Much of the
   change can be attributed to rising numbers of Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander
   students. The proportion of Asian or Pacific Islander students rose from 1 percent to 6
   percent, and the Hispanic proportion rose from 4 percent to 10 percent during that time
   period. The proportion of Black students fluctuated during most of the early part of the
   period, before rising to 13 percent in 2004 from 9 percent in 1976. Nonresident aliens for
   whom race/ethnicity is not reported comprised 3 percent of the total enrollment in 2004.
   1
     Title IV programs, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Education,
   provide financial aid to postsecondary students.
   SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
   (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-005), Chapter 3.
Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by sex of student and attendance status:
Selected years, 1970 through 2004
[In thousands]
Sex and Institutions of higher education                  Degree-granting institutions
attendance
status     1970 1975 1980 1985 1990               1995    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004
Total      8,581 11,185 12,097 12,247 13,819 14,262 15,312 15,928 16,612 16,900 17,272
Sex
Men        5,044 6,149 5,874 5,818 6,284 6,343 6,722 6,961 7,202 7,256 7,387
Women      3,537 5,036 6,223 6,429 7,535 7,919 8,591 8,967 9,410 9,645 9,885
Attendance status
Full-time 5,816 6,841 7,098 7,075 7,821 8,129 9,010 9,448 9,946 10,312 10,610
Part-time 2,765 4,344 4,999 5,172 5,998 6,133 6,303 6,480 6,665 6,589 6,662
  NOTE: Institutions of higher education were accredited by an agency or association that
  was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, or recognized directly by the
  Secretary of Education. The new degree-granting classification is very similar to the



                                                                                          103
 earlier higher education classification, except that it includes some additional institutions,
 primarily 2-year colleges, and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not
 award associate's or higher degrees. These degree-granting institutions participated in
 Title IV federal financial aid programs. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
 SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
 (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Table 170.
         Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by age: Selected years,
         1990 through 2014
         [In thousands]
        Age                        1990    1995    2000   2002   20051 20101 20141
        Total                      13,819 14,262 15,312 16,612 17,350 18,816 19,470
        14 to 17 years old         177     148     145    202    201     216    215
        18 and 19 years old        2,950 2,894 3,531 3,571 3,705 4,067 3,951
        20 and 21 years old        2,761 2,705 3,045 3,366 3,456 3,848 3,845
        22 to 24 years old         2,144 2,411 2,617 2,932 3,143 3,384 3,686
        25 to 29 years old         1,982 2,120 1,960 2,102 2,374 2,724 2,913
        30 to 34 years old         1,322 1,236 1,265 1,300 1,290 1,399 1,573
         35 years old and over 2,484 2,747 2,749 3,139 3,181 3,178 3,287
 1
    Projected.
  NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Some data have been revised
  from previously published figures. Data by age are based on the distribution by age from
  the U.S. Census Bureau.
  SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  (2005). Projections of Education Statistics to 2014 (NCES 2005-074), Table 11.
Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by student type: Selected years, 1970
through 2004
[In thousands]
Student              Institutions of higher education     Degree-granting institutions
characteristic       1970 1980     1985    1990    1995   2000   2001    2002    2003    2004
Total                8,581 12,097 12,247 13,819 14,262 15,312 15,928 16,612 16,900 17,272
                 1
Undergraduate 7,376 10,475 10,597 11,959 12,232 13,155 13,716 14,257 14,474 14,781
Graduate2            1,031 1,343 1,376 1,586 1,732 1,850 1,904 2,036 2,098 2,157
First-
professional    173 278        274     273     298   307         309     319     329     335
 1
   Data include unclassified undergraduate students.
 2
   Data include unclassified graduate students.

 NOTE: Institutions of higher education were accredited by an agency or association that
 was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, or recognized directly by the
 Secretary of Education. The new degree-granting classification is very similar to the



                                                                                          104
earlier higher education classification, except that it includes some additional institutions,
primarily 2-year colleges, and excludes a few higher education institutions that did not
award associate's or higher degrees. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Tables 170, 185, 186,
187. <A< p>
           Percentage distribution of students enrolled in degree-granting
           institutions, by race/ethnicity: Selected years, fall 1976 through fall
           2004
                            Institutions of
                                                 Degree-granting institutions
                            higher education
           Race/ethnicity 1976 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
           Total            100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
           White, non-
           Hispanic         83.4 81.4 77.6 68.3 67.6 67.1 66.7 66.1
           Total minority 14.5 16.1 19.6 28.2 28.8 29.4 29.8 30.4
           Black, non-
           Hispanic         9.5    9.2    9.0    11.3 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.5
           Hispanic         3.5    3.9    5.7    9.5    9.8    10.0 10.2 10.5
           Asian or
           Pacific
           Islander         0.8    2.4    4.1    6.4    6.4    6.5    6.4   6.4
           American
           Indian/Alaskan
           Native         0.7      0.7    0.7    1.0    1.0    1.0    1.0   1.0
             Nonresident
             alien           2.0 2.5 2.8 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.4
NOTE: Data for 1976 through 1990 are for institutions of higher education. Data for
1996 and later years are for degree-granting institutions. Institutions of higher education
were accredited by an agency or association that was recognized by the U.S. Department
of Education, or recognized directly by the Secretary of Education. The new degree-
granting classification is very similar to the earlier higher education classification, except
that it includes some additional institutions, primarily 2-year colleges, and excludes a few
higher education institutions that did not award associate's or higher degrees. Detail may
not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Table 205.

Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Condition of Education 2006: Past and Projected Undergraduate Enrollments



                                                                                          105
2006, Digest of Education 2005, Table 191. Total fall enrollment in all degree-granting
institutions, by attendance status, sex, and state or jurisdiction: 2003 and 2004
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 213. Number of institutions and
enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by size, type and control of institution: Fall
2003 and 2003-04
2006, The Condition of Education 2006: Immediate Transition to College
2006, The Condition of Education 2006: Trends in Graduate/First-Professional
Enrollments
2005, Table 19. Actual and alternative projected numbers for undergraduate enrollment
in all degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control on
institution: Fall 1989 to fall 2014
2005, Table 20. Actual and alternative projected numbers for graduate enrollment in all
degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status, and control on
institution: Fall 1989 to fall 2014
2005, Table 21. Actual and alternative projected numbers for first-professional
enrollment in all degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by sex, attendance status,
and control on institution: Fall 1989 to fall 2014
2005, The Condition of Education 2005: Minority student enrollments
2005, The Condition of Education 2005: Postsecondary participation and attainment
among traditional-age students
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: International comparison of transition to
postsecondary education

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004; Graduation Rates, 1998 &
2001 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004
2005, Gender Differences in Participation and Completion of Undergraduate Education
and How They Have Changed Over Time
2005, Postsecondary Participation Rates by Sex and Race/Ethnicity: 1974-2003
2005, The Road Less Traveled? Students Who Enroll in Multiple Institutions
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

ED-N-6:
Question:
How much do colleges and universities spend on students?

Response:
Trend data show small increases in the current-fund expenditures per student at public 2-
year and 4-year colleges and universities in the late 1980s and larger increases during the
1990s. After an adjustment for inflation at colleges and universities, current-fund
expenditures per student at public colleges rose about 5 percent between 1985–86 and
1990–91, and another 28 percent between 1990–91 and 2000–01.




                                                                                       106
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–030), Chapter 3.

        Current-fund expenditures per full-time equivalent student in degree-
        granting institutions, by type and control of institution: Selected years,
        1970-71 to 2000-01
        [In constant 2004-05 dollars]
        Control of
        institution and        All             4-year            2-year
        year                   institutions    institutions      institutions
        All institutions
        1970-71                $16,741         $19,740           $11,227
        1975-76                15,858          19,807            17,600
        1980-81                16,072          20,055            18,173
        1985-86                19,212          23,946            21,096
        1990-91                20,946          26,417            25,041
        1995-96                22,867          28,879            29,184
        Public institutions
        1970-71                14,610          17,945            10,120
        1975-76                13,876          18,228            16,564
        1980-81                14,086          18,454            16,823
        1985-86                16,696          21,683            19,395
        1990-91                17,606          23,169            23,245
        1995-96                19,131          25,534            26,824
        1999-2000              21,506          28,597            31,079
        2000-01                22,559          30,625            32,589
        Private institutions
        1970-71                22,656          23,452            1,108
        1975-76                22,461          23,281            1,037
        1980-81                22,135          23,380            1,350
        1985-86                26,584          28,615            1,702
        1990-91                31,354          33,327            1,796
        1995-96                34,079          35,466            2,360

NOTE: Constant dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Table 339.


                                                                                     107
Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 340. Current-fund expenditures and
educational and general expenditures of degree-granting institutions, by purpose and per
student: Selected years, 1929-30 through 1995-96
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 341. Current-fund expenditures of
public degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution: 2000-01
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 342. Current-fund expenditures of
public degree-granting institutions, by purpose: Selected years, 1980-81 through 2000-01
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 343. Current-fund expenditures of
public degree-granting institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years, 1980-81
through 2000-01
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 344. Educational and general
expenditures of public degree-granting institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Selected
years, 1980-81 through 2000-01
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 345. Voluntary support for degree-
granting institutions, by source and purpose of support: Selected years, 1959-60 through
2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 346. Total expenditures of private not-
for-profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution: 1996-97
through 2002-03
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 347. Total expenditures of private not-
for-profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution: 2002-03
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 348. Total expenditures of private for-
profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution: 2001-02 and 2002-
03
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 349. Total expenditures of private not-
for-profit and for-profit degree-granting institutions, by level and state or jurisdiction:
1996-97 through 2002-03
2006, The Condition of Education 2006: International Comparisons of Expenditures for
Education

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004; Graduation Rates, 1998 &
2001 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004
2005, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2003; Graduation Rates 1997 &
2000 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2003
2004, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal
Year 2002
2004, Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2003
2003, A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware Study of
Instructional Costs and Productivity
2003, Congressionally Mandated Studies of College Costs and Prices
2003, What Colleges Contribute: Institutional Aid to Full-Time Undergraduates
Attending 4-Year Colleges and Universities


                                                                                       108
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Table 339.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75

ED-N-7:

Question:
Do you have any statistics on financial aid for postsecondary undergraduates?

Response:
NCES sponsors the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), a
comprehensive nationwide study designed to determine how students and their families
pay for postsecondary education, and to describe some demographic and other
characteristics of those enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample
of students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate,
and first-professional students. Students attending all types and levels of institutions are
represented, including public and private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions, and
less-than-2-year institutions, community colleges, and 4-year colleges and universities.
The NPSAS studies are designed to address policy questions resulting from the rapid
growth of financial aid programs and the succession of changes in financial aid program
policies since 1986.
Highlights from 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04)
Undergraduate Financial Aid Estimates for 2003-04 by Type of Institution include the
following:

All Institutions

      Sixty-three percent of all undergraduates enrolled in 2003–04 received some type
       of financial aid. Undergraduates were more likely to receive grants than student
       loans in 2003–04, but the average grant amount was less than the average student
       loan amount. About one-half (51 percent) of undergraduates received grants and
       about one-third (35 percent) took out student loans. The average amount of grants
       received was $4,000, and the average amount borrowed by undergraduates in
       2003–04 was $5,800.

      Undergraduates enrolled in 2003–04 were more likely to receive federal grants
       than grants from any other source. Twenty-eight percent of all undergraduates
       received federal grants (such as Federal Pell Grants or Federal Supplemental
       Educational Opportunity Grants), 18 percent received institutional grants, 15
       percent received state grants, and 15 percent received grants from other sources
       (e.g., employers, parents’ employers, or private foundations or organizations).



Public 4-Year Institutions



                                                                                        109
      Sixty-nine percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 4-year institutions in
       2003–04 received some type of financial aid. About one-half (52 percent) of all
       undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions in 2003–04 received grants
       and 45 percent took out student loans. Those who were awarded grants received
       an average of $4,000 in grant funds, while those who took out student loans
       borrowed an average of $5,600.

      Twenty-seven percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 4-year institutions
       in 2003–04 received federal grants, 21 percent received institutional grants, 19
       percent received state grants, and 14 percent received grants from other sources
       such as employers or private organizations. The average federal grant amount was
       $2,800, the average institutional grant was $2,900, the average state grant was
       $2,200, and the average grant funded through other sources was $2,000.



Private Not-For-Profit 4-Year Institutions

      Eighty-three percent of all undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year
       institutions received some type of financial aid in 2003–04. About three-fourths
       (73 percent) of the undergraduates enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year
       institutions received grants and 56 percent took out student loans in 2003–04. The
       average grant amount was $7,700 and the average student loan was $6,900.

      One-half (50 percent) of all undergraduates enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-
       year institutions in 2003–04 received institutional grants, 28 percent received
       federal grants, 22 percent received state-funded grants, and 23 percent received
       grants from other sources such as private organizations or employers. The average
       institutional grant amount awarded to undergraduates at private not-for-profit 4-
       year institutions in 2003–04 was $7,100, the average federal grant was $3,000, the
       average state grant was $2,800, and the average grant from other sources was
       $2,900.


Public 2-Year Institutions

      Forty-seven percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 2-year institutions in
       2003–04 received some type of financial aid. Forty percent received grants and 12
       percent took out student loans. Although a smaller percentage of undergraduates
       attending public 2-year institutions received loans than grants, the average student
       loan amount ($3,600) was larger than the average grant amount ($2,200).

      Among undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions in 2003–04, 23
       percent received federal grants, 11 percent received state-funded grants, 8 percent
       received institutional grants, and 12 percent received grants from other sources
       such as employers or private organizations. The average federal grant was $2,300,



                                                                                       110
       the average state grant was $1,000, the average institutional grant was $1,200, and
       the average grant awarded from other sources was $1,100.



Private For-Profit Institutions

      Among students attending private for-profit institutions, about 9 out of 10 (89
       percent) received some type of financial aid in 2003–04. About two-thirds (66
       percent) of the undergraduates enrolled in private for-profit institutions received
       grants and about three-fourths (73 percent) took out student loans in 2003–04.
       The average grant amount was $3,300 and the average student loan amount was
       $6,800.

      About one-half (53 percent) of all undergraduates at private for-profit institutions
       received a federal grant in 2003–04 (table 18). Eight percent received state grants,
       7 percent received institutional grants, and 13 percent received grants funded
       through other sources.

Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 316. Percentage of undergraduates
receiving aid, by type and source of aid and selected student characteristics: 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 317. Average amount of financial aid
awarded to full-time, full-year undergraduates, by type and source of aid and selected
student characteristics: 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 318. Average amount of financial aid
awarded to part-time or part-year undergraduates, by type and source of aid and selected
student characteristics: 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 319. Undergraduates enrolled full-time
and part-time, by aid status, source of aid, and control and type of institution: 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 320. Percentage of full-time, full-year
undergraduates receiving aid, by type and source of aid received and control and type of
institution: Selected years, 1992-93 through 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 321. Percentage of part-time or part-year
undergraduates receiving aid, by type and source of aid received and control and type of
institution: Selected years, 1992-93 through 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 322. Percentage of full-time and part-
time undergraduates receiving aid, by federal aid program and control and type of
institution: 2003-04
2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 327. State awards for need-based
undergraduate scholarship and grant programs, by state: Selected years, 1989-90 through
2003-04
2006, The Condition of Education 2006: Federal Grants and Loans to Undergraduate
Students
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Debt Burden of College Graduates




                                                                                        111
2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Institutional Aid at 4-Year Colleges and
Universities

Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
2005, Changes in Patterns of Prices and Financial Aid
2004, A Decade of Undergraduate Student Aid: 1989-90 to 1999-2000
2004, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics, Fiscal
Year 2002
2004, Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2003
2004, Paying for College: Changes Between 1990 and 2000 for Full-Time Dependent
Undergraduates
2003, What Colleges Contribute: Institutional Aid to Full-Time Undergraduates
Attending 4-Year Colleges and Universities
2002, Student Financing of Graduate and First-Professional Education, 1999-2000:
Profiles of Students in Selected Degree Programs and Their Use of Assistantships
2002, What Students Pay for College: Changes in Net Price of College Attendance
Between 1992-93 and 1999-2000
2001, Middle Income Undergraduates: Where They Enroll and How They Pay for Their
Education
2001, Undergraduates Enrolled With Higher Sticker Prices
2000, Low-Income Students: Who They Are and How They Pay for Their Education

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04) Undergraduate
Financial Aid Estimates for 2003-04 by Type of Institution (NCES 2005-163).
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31



ED-N-8:
In 1999–2000, 42 percent of all undergraduates were enrolled at public 2-year institutions, In
1999–2000, 42 percent of all undergraduates were enrolled at public 2-year institutions,
commonly known as community colleges (Horn, Peter, and Rooney 2002). The lower fees and
open-access policies at community colleges have broadened access to postsecondary
education for students facing such barriers to entry as poor academic performance in high
school, limited English-language skills or other basic skill deficiencies, or financial hardship
(Grubb 1999). Community colleges also serve students seeking additional job skills, technical
certification, and enrichment opportunities. However, while access to community colleges is
easily attained, research has shown that a significant number of students who enter
community colleges do not complete a formal credential (Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000).

Currently, federal performance measures, as reflected in the Higher Education Act and the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, have been primarily limited to completion
of formal credentials such as certificates and associate's degrees. However, because
community colleges serve students with a wide range of goals and academic preparation
(Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000), holding community colleges accountable only for student
attainment may understate their effectiveness in meeting a variety of objectives. This report
provides information on the varying goals, preparation, and outcomes of community college
students.




                                                                                            112
This report uses data from the 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study
(BPS:96/01), the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000), and the
1999–2000 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000). Each data set provides
a different perspective on the major questions of the analysis. BPS is a representative sample
of all undergraduates, regardless of when they graduated from high school, who enrolled in
postsecondary education for the first time in 1995–96 and were last interviewed in 2001,
about 6 years later. This survey provides the latest data on degree attainment and
persistence, as well as 4-year college transfer rates and outcomes. The analysis sample used
in this report is limited to BPS students whose first postsecondary enrollment was in a
community college.

The NELS survey comprises a grade cohort, which means all respondents are in one grade or
are about the same age. NELS respondents were first surveyed in 1988 when they were in the
eighth grade, and were followed through high school and college. They were last interviewed
in 2000, about 8 years after most of the participants had graduated from high school. Unlike
the BPS cohort, which includes first-time students regardless of age, the NELS cohort reflects
a more "traditional" group of students—those who enroll in postsecondary education soon
after high school graduation. In the analysis for this report, only 1992 high school graduates
who first enrolled in a community college within 2 years of high school graduation are
included. NELS provides several measures of high school academic preparation to determine
how students' academic performance is associated with their college outcomes.

Finally, the NPSAS survey consists of a representative sample of all students enrolled in
postsecondary education at one point in time—the 1999–2000 academic year—including
students of all ages as well as students who entered postsecondary education at various points
in time and who are at different stages of their studies. NPSAS is used to examine the degree
objectives of first-time and continuing community college students enrolled in 1999–2000.
Drawing upon these three data sets, this study addresses the following research questions:

    1. What percentage of students enrolled in community colleges seeks to complete a
       formal credential, either in a public 2-year institution or through transfer to a 4-year
       college or university?
    2. How do different types of community college students differ in their intentions to
       complete a formal credential?
    3. Among those intending to complete a certificate or degree or transfer to a 4-year
       institution, what percentage actually do so, and how do rates of completion vary
       among different types of students?
    4. Among students intending to complete a formal credential, what is the relationship
       between rates of completion and different levels of postsecondary preparedness?
    5. When students are asked about the impact of their postsecondary education on
       various aspects of their labor market participation, how do the responses of students
       who completed a formal credential differ from those of students who left without a
       certificate or degree?

The findings of this study suggest that success rates for community college students, as
measured by completion of a formal degree or certificate or transfer to a 4-year institution,
are roughly 50 to 60 percent among students who enroll with intentions to earn a credential or
transfer.




Community College Students Seeking Formal Credentials
Results from all three data sets suggest that roughly 9 in 10 community college students
enroll intending to obtain a formal credential or to transfer to a 4-year institution. As shown in
figure A, among all NPSAS undergraduates enrolled in public 2-year institutions in 1999–2000,
11 percent of first-year students and 10 percent of continuing students reported no degree or
transfer intentions. Similarly, among BPS students who first enrolled in public 2-year




                                                                                             113
institutions in 1995–96, 11 percent reported no intentions of earning a degree or transferring
to a 4-year institution (figure B). NELS 1992 high school graduates were asked what their
highest degree expectations were when they were in 12th grade. Among those who first
enrolled in public 2-year institutions, 10 percent reported that they were not seeking a degree
and that they expected to complete less than 2 years of postsecondary education and nearly
two-thirds reported that they were seeking a bachelor's degree or higher (figure C).
Figure A. Percentage distribution of 1999–2000 undergraduates in public 2-year
institutions according to their current degree program and when they enrolled




NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999–2000 National
Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).

Figure B. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students first
enrolled in public 2-year institutions according to their degree/certificate and




                                                                                                     114
transfer expectations




NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Figure C. Percentage distribution of 1992 high school graduates first enrolled in
public 2-year institutions by December 1994 according to highest level of education
they expected to complete as reported in 1992




NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.




                                                                                                    115
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988


Completion and Persistence Rates Among Students Seeking Formal Credentials

This study first examined the outcomes of BPS students whose first enrollment was in a
community college. Among students who intended to obtain a formal credential or to transfer
to a 4-year institution, 11 percent had attained a bachelor's degree or higher, 17 percent had
earned an associate's degree, and 11 percent had earned a certificate as of 2001, for a total
attainment rate of 39 percent (figure D). An additional 12 percent had transferred to a 4-year
institution but had not yet attained a degree. In total, 51 percent of BPS community college
students who intended to earn a degree or to transfer to a 4-year institution had fulfilled these
expectations within 6 years of their initial enrollment.

The study then examined NELS students, who represent more traditional students who enroll
in a community college soon after high school graduation. As shown in figure E, among
students who intended to obtain a degree, 21 percent had attained a bachelor's degree or
higher, 18 percent had attained an associate's degree, and 11 percent had earned a vocational
certificate or license as of 2000 (6 to 8 years after entry), for a total attainment rate of 50
percent. An additional 13 percent had not attained a formal credential but had attended a 4-
year institution. Thus, in total, about 63 percent of students intending to obtain a formal
credential had either done so or had attended a 4-year institution.

Time to degree

About two-thirds of all community college students attend primarily on a part-time basis
(Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000). Therefore, it takes them longer to complete associate's and
bachelor's degrees than the typical time expected—2 years and 4 years, respectively, of full-
time study. The length of certificate programs varies, but they are typically 1-year full-time
programs (Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000). Among BPS students, the average time from first
enrollment to attainment for students who had attained an associate's degree as their highest
credential (16 percent of all students) was about 3 1/2 years (41 months). Students who had
completed a certificate (10 percent of all students) took an average of about 2 1/2 years to
complete their program. Students who had completed a bachelor's degree within the 6 years
of the survey period (10 percent of all students) took nearly 5 years (56 months) to complete
the degree. However, about 8 percent of BPS community college students, or roughly 44
percent of those in bachelor's degree programs, were still enrolled in a 4-year institution and
had not yet completed a degree. These students required more than 6 years to complete their
bachelor's degrees.

Transfer students

An analysis of the rates at which BPS community college students transferred to 4-year
institutions revealed that a total of about 29 percent had transferred. Among students who
had reported bachelor's degree intentions when they first enrolled, 51 percent had transferred.
Among those who had transferred, about 8 in 10 had either attained a bachelor's degree (35
percent) or were still enrolled in a 4-year institution (44 percent) as of 2001 (figure F).
Moreover, community college students with bachelor's degree intentions were not likely to
earn an associate's degree before transferring. Among transfers, roughly one-fifth of
bachelor's degree seekers had earned an associate's degree before transferring.

Figure D. Percentage distribution of 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students first
enrolled in public 2-year institutions who intended to obtain a credential according




                                                                                                          116
to highest postsecondary education attained by 2001




NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).

Figure E. Percentage distribution of 1992 high school graduates first enrolled in
public 2-year institutions by December 1994 who intended to obtain a credential
according to highest postsecondary education attained by 2000




                                                                                                    117
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Education Longitudinal
Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000), "Fourth Follow-up, 2000, Data Analysis System."

Figure F. Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students first enrolled in public
2-year institutions, the percentage who transferred to a 4-year institution, and
among transfers, the percentage who completed a bachelor's degree or were still
enrolled as of 2001




SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).


Completion Rates and Postsecondary Preparedness

Many NELS 1992 high school graduates who began their postsecondary education in
community colleges faced challenging obstacles to completing a credential. In 1988, when
NELS students were in the eighth grade, 39 percent who enrolled in community colleges were
"at risk" (had one or more risk factors) of dropping out of high school. In addition, roughly half
(54 percent) entered college with one or more characteristics that placed them at risk of not
completing their postsecondary education.

Proficiency test scores also showed that many NELS community college students began their
postsecondary education with relatively low ability levels in mathematics and reading. Thirty
percent of these students entered community college with 12th-grade mathematics proficiency
scores at Level 1 or below. These students could perform simple arithmetical operations on
whole numbers but could not perform simple operations on decimals, fractions, powers, or
roots. In addition, 44 percent of NELS community college students enrolled with 12th-grade
reading proficiency scores at Level 1 or below. These students had basic comprehension skills,
but they could not make relatively simple inferences from reading a text beyond the author's
main point.

While many NELS 1992 high school graduates entered community college lacking strong
academic preparation, about one-third (36 percent) were academically qualified to attend a 4-
year institution. These are students who could possibly have enrolled in a 4-year college or
university based on several measures of academic preparation, including SAT scores, rank in




                                                                                                          118
high school class, NELS achievement test scores, and the rigor of their coursetaking. In
addition, 17 percent and 24 percent, respectively, had scored at the highest proficiency levels
tested in reading and mathematics as seniors in high school.

Taking into account students' academic profiles, college students who were better prepared
academically to enter postsecondary education tended to complete a certificate or degree or
attend a 4-year institution more often than those who were less prepared. For example,
among those who scored at the highest proficiency level tested in mathematics as seniors in
high school, about three-quarters had either attained a degree or certificate or had enrolled in
a 4-year institution, compared with roughly half (54 percent) of those who scored at the
lowest levels. Similarly, among community college students who were academically qualified
for enrollment in a 4-year college, roughly three-quarters had either attained a degree
(including 36 percent who had attained a bachelor's degree) or had enrolled in a 4-year
institution, compared with 55 percent of those who were either not qualified or only minimally
qualified to attend a 4-year college.



Community College Completion and Employment Outcomes

BPS community college students who were no longer enrolled 3 years after first attending
were asked several questions about the impact of their education on their salary and other
employment experiences. Earlier research on the BPS survey showed that 44 percent of
community college students had left in 1998 with no credential, while about 8 percent had left
with a certificate or an associate's degree (Berkner, Horn, and Clune 2000, table 2.1a).
Despite the small percentage of completers, there were some obvious differences between
these students and their peers who had not completed with respect to reporting positive
employment outcomes. As shown in figure G, 63 percent of those who had attained a formal
credential by 1998 reported that their postsecondary education resulted in salary increases,
compared with 29 percent who had not attained a credential. Similarly, 71 percent of those
who had attained a credential reported that their postsecondary enrollment had led to
increased job responsibilities, while 48 percent of those who had not attained one reported the
same.

NELS students were also asked about their employment outcomes when they were last
interviewed in 2000 (i.e., 6 to 8 years after they had begun their postsecondary education).
Community college students who had earned either a certificate or an associate's degree or
had transferred to a 4-year institution were more likely to report positive employment
outcomes than those who had left without a credential or had not transferred. In addition,
community college students who had transferred to a 4-year institution but had not earned a
degree were also more likely than those who had left without transferring to report positive
outcomes.

Figure G. Among 1995–96 beginning postsecondary students first enrolled in public
2-year institutions and who were no longer enrolled, the percentage who reported
their enrollment resulted in a salary increase or improved their job responsibilities




                                                                                            119
as reported in 1998, by degree attainment




SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996/01 Beginning
Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:96/01).


Conclusions

Although educational objectives vary among students enrolled in community colleges, most
community college students say that they desire a formal credential, either from the
community college or through transfer to a 4-year institution. Nearly 90 percent of students
beginning their postsecondary education in public 2-year institutions express an intent to
attain a certificate or degree (including transfer).

In both the NELS and BPS surveys, roughly one-fifth of community college students with any
degree or transfer intentions had earned an associate's degree. However, when success is
defined as any degree attainment or 4-year transfer, about one-half (51 percent) of all
community college students (BPS) and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of more traditional
students (NELS) had achieved successful outcomes.

At the same time, however, because about two-thirds of community college students attend
primarily on a part-time basis, the average amount of time to complete an associate's degree
was about 3 1/2 years (as measured by BPS). Those who earned a certificate took about 2 1/2
years to complete the credential, and roughly 44 percent of bachelor's degree seekers were
still enrolled after 6 years.

The study also revealed that about 29 percent of all first-time community college students
transferred to a 4-year college or university during the 6-year survey period, including about
one-half of those with bachelor's degree intentions. For those who did transfer, about 8 in 10
had either attained a bachelor's degree or were still working toward that degree 6 years after
they first enrolled in a community college.

Finally, while many students who had left community college without completing a credential
reported that their postsecondary education favorably affected their employment, students
who had earned a credential were more likely to report positive impacts than students who
had not earned one.



                                                                                                    120
References
Berkner, L., Horn, L., and Clune, N. (2000). Descriptive Summary of 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students:
Three Years Later (NCES 2000–154). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Grubb, N. (1999). Honored But Invisible. New York: Routledge.
Horn, L., Peter, K., and Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions: 1999–
2000 (NCES 2002–168). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.




     Data sources: The NCES 1996/01 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study
     (BPS:96/01), National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000), and 1999–2000
     National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:2000).


     For technical information, see the complete report:


     Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A.C., and Horn, L. (2003). Community College Students: Goals, Academic
     Preparation, and Outcomes (NCES 2003–164). Author affiliations: G. Hoachlander, A.C. Sikora, and
     L. Horn, MPR Associates, Inc.


     For questions about content, contact Aurora D'Amico (aurora.d'amico@ed.gov).


     To obtain the complete report (NCES 2003–164), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877–433–
     7827) or visit the NCES Electronic Catalog (http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch).



Source: Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation,
and Outcomes. By: Gary Hoachlander, Anna C. Sikora, and Laura
Horn. Education Statistics Quarterly, Vol 5, Issue 2, Topic:
Postsecondary Education.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/5_2/q4_1.asp


ED-N-9:
Indicator 50: Federal Grants and Loans to Undergraduate Students. U.S. Department of
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The Condition of Education,
2006, NCES 2006-071, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

ED-N-10:
Indicator 38: Debt Burden of College Graduates. Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P.
Provasnik, S., Sen, A. and Tobin, R. (2004). ). The Condition of Education, 2004, NCES
2004-077. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

ED-N-11:
Communicative Language Teaching in a Multimedia Language Lab. Huang, S.-J., Liu,
H.-F. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. VI, No. 2, February 2000. Retrieved from the
internet on 05/28/08: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Huang-CompLab.htm




                                                                                                         121
ED-N-12:
The Effects Of Institutional Factors on the Success of Community College Students, T.
Bailey, J.C. Calcagno, D. Jenkins, G. Kienzl, D.T. Leinbach, Community College
Research Center, January 2005.

ED-N-13:
The Effect of Student Goals on Community College Performance Measures. T. Bailey, D.
Jenkins, D.T. Leinbach, CCRC Brief, Community College Research Center, No. 33,
March 2007.

ED-N-14:
Promoting Academic Momentum at Community Colleges: Challenges and Opportunities.
S. Goldrick-Rab, CCRC Working Paper No. 5, February 2007.

ED-N-15:
Stepping Stones to a Degree: The Impact of Enrollment Pathways and Milestones on
Community College Student Outcomes. J.C. Calcagno, P. Crosta, T. Bailey, D. Jenkins,
CCRC Working Paper No. 4, October 2006.

ED-N-16:
Stepping Stones to a Degree: The Impact of Enrollment Pathways and Milestones on
Older Community College Student Outcomes. J.C. Calcagno, P. Crosta, T. Bailey, D.
Jenkins, CCRC Brief, Community College Research Center, October 2006.

ED-N-17:
Community College Management Practices that Promote Student Success, D. Jenkins,
CCRC Brief, Community College Research Center, October 2006.

ED-N-18:
Is Student Success Labeled Institutional Failure? Student Goals and Graduation Rates in
the Accountability Debate at Community Colleges, T. Bailey, D.T. Leinbach, D. Jenkins,
CCRC Working Paper No. 1, October 2005.

ED-N-19:
What Can Student Right-To-Know Graduation Rates Tell Us About Community College
Performance, T. Bailey, M. Crosta, D. Jenkins, CCRC Working Paper No. 6, August
2006.

ED-N-20:
What Community Colleges Management Practices Are Effective In Promoting Student
Success? A Study of High- and Low-Impact Institutions, D. Jenkins, Community College
Research Center, Rev. October 2006.

ED-N-21:
Teaching by Choice: Community College Expand K-12STEM Pathways and Practices.
Supported by the National Science Foundation. Edited by Lynn Barnett and Faith San



                                                                                    122
Felice. Text by Madeline Patton. American Association of Community Colleges,
Washington, DC, 2008.

ED-N-22:
ATE Projects Impact. Partners with Industry for a New American Workforce. National
Science Foundation. Edited by Madeline Patton. American Association of Community
Colleges, Washington, DC, 2008.




STATE EDUCATION TRENDS

ED-S-1
Funding for Enrollment Exceeds College-Age
Population Growth




      Demand for higher education is based in large part on the size of the young adult
       population (18 to 24 year olds).
      The state has provided more access to higher education than would be indicated
       solely by this prime college-going age group.



                                                                                     123
      A greater portion of the population is attending college for a variety of reasons,
       including the growth in financial aid opportunities, flat or declining fees, student
       outreach efforts, and other state policies.




California Public Universities
2002-03 Full-Time Equivalent Students




CSU                                            University of
                                               California
Bakersfield          6,210                     Berkeley             30,657
Channel Islands      1,320                     Davis                25,598
Chico                14,585                    Irvine               21,540
Dominguez Hills      9,020                     Los Angeles          34,519
Fresno               16,590                    Merced               —a
Fullerton            23,525                    Riverside            13,948
Hayward              11,695                    San Diego            21,592
Humboldt             7,450                     San Francisco        3,712



                                                                                        124
Long Beach         26,440         Santa Barbara   20,200
Los Angeles        16,445         Santa Cruz      13,00
Maritime Academy   825            Total UC        184,766
                                                  a
Monterey Bay       3,245                            Campus scheduled to
                                                  open in 2004-05
Northridge         22,175
Pomona             17,045
Sacramento         21,820
San Bernardino     12,900
San Diego          27,040
San Francisco      21,706
San Jose           21,500
San Luis Obispo    16,800
San Marcos         5,410
Sonoma             6,675
Stanislaus         6,385
Total CSU          316,806


Almost Half of CSU Freshmen Not Academically
Prepared
Regularly Admitted Freshmen Needing Remediation




                                                                    125
     Of regularly admitted California State University (CSU) freshmen, almost half are
      unprepared for college-level writing and almost half are unprepared for college-
      level math. These rates have risen over the past decade.
     At about half of the CSU campuses, at least two-thirds of regularly admitted
      freshmen arrive unprepared for college-level work. At CSU Dominguez Hills and
      CSU Los Angeles, roughly 90 percent of regularly admitted freshmen are
      unprepared for college-level work.
     At the University of California, about one-third of regularly admitted freshmen
      arrive unprepared for college-level writing.


California Higher Education Fees Cover a Fraction of
Costs

2002-03




     Students pay a small share of education costs at the state's public colleges and
      universities. In fact, California student fees are among the lowest in the nation.
     Since 2000, the annual state subsidy for each student has averaged $18,000 at UC,
      $8,500 at CSU, and $4,375 at CCC.
     As of the 2002-03 academic year, resident undergraduate fees had not been raised
      at any of the state's public colleges and universities for eight years.


State Financial Aid Program Expanding Significantly
Since Mid-90s




                                                                                    126
         The state now guarantees that all recent high school graduates meeting financial
          and academic requirements may receive Cal Grant awards. These awards cover
          the total cost of educational fees, and, in some cases, a portion of living expenses.
         In 2002-03, approximately 59,300 recent high school graduates received Cal
          Grant awards. This represents an increase of 161 percent (or 36,600 students) over
          the past ten years.
         Approximately 45 percent of resident first-time freshmen entering the University
          of California and the California State University currently receive Cal Grant
          awards.

Source: CAL Facts, California’s Economy and Budget in Perspective, Legislative Analyst’s Office, December 2002.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2002/cal_facts/trends_part_2_highered.html


ED-S-2
California’s K-12 Public Schools: How are they doing? By Carrol, S.J., Krop, C., Arkes,
J., Morrison, P.A., and Flanagan, A. The Rand Corporation, 2005.

ED-S-3
First Report to the Legistlator on Status of Systemwide Investigation of College/High
School Concurrent Enrollment. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
(2003).

ED-S-4 (is also P-S-5)
Impacts of Student Fee Increase and Budget Changes on Enrollment and Financial Aid in
the California Community Colleges.
Source: A Report to the Legislature, pursuant to provisions of the 2003-2004 Budget Act.
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges, April 2005.

ED-S-5



                                                                                                                  127
Correctional Officer Training Demonstration Project. A Partnership between California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations and California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office. CDCR Evaluation Report, July 2007.



LOCAL EDUCATION TRENDS
ED-L-1

Countywide Profile               FISCAL YEAR: 2005-06
This page includes:
   Schools by Type                      Enrollment by Grade
   Charter Schools                      Average Class Size
   Districts by Type                    Technology by School
                                        Type
Related links:
                                Definitions
This site reports data for California's K-12 public school system only.




California’s public education system is immense:
more than six million students in more than 9,500
schools and programs that county offices of
education (COEs) provide. These are governed by
almost 1,000 elected school and county boards
regulated by a complex Education Code and a
finance system that is largely controlled by the
Legislature and governor.

These Ed-Data Profiles provide a comprehensive picture of each
school, district and county, with statewide totals and links to additional
data or explanations. The Profiles are organized in three sections:
General Information, Students, and Staffing. Click on the tabs to move
between them.

This countywide profile is a summary of all schools/districts in the
county, including those run by county offices. Information about
programs run by county offices is included under District Profiles;
county office programs are, however, not part of the Compare Districts
function. Financial information for county offices is on the county tab
(Financial Reports for County Office). Click here to learn how COEs
provide fiscal oversight and assistance to school districts.



                                                                                   128
Schools by Type                                             Schools vary in their grade-
                                                            level configuration. Most
Orange County, 2005-06
                                                            elementary schools encompass
                Number             Full-Time  Pupil-
                of                 Equivalent Teacher
                                                            K-5, middle schools 6-8, junior
                Schools Enrollment Teachers   Ratio         high 7-9, and high schools 9-
Elementary      402       252,518     11,650.8       21.7   12.
Middle          83        91,411      3,574.7        25.6

High School     66        147,977     5,649.4        26.2

K-12            2         1,636       55.8           29.3

Alternative     10        3,829       97.7           39.2

Special
                8         1,665       177.1          9.4
Education

Continuation 16           4,793       241.9          19.8

Community
                4         184         22.0           8.4
Day

Juvenile
                1         1,018       77.2           13.2
Court

County
                1         5,083       237.3          21.4
Community

Total           593       510,114     21,783.9       23.4

              Schools by Type definitions
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06,
pubschls 8/4/06, sfib0506 8/22/06)




Charter Schools                                             Since the enabling legislation
Orange County, 2005-06                                      was passed in 1992, the
                                                            number of approved charter
Number of Schools                             12
                                                            schools has increased
Enrollment                                    6,271         annually. The 2005-06 count
Full-Time Equivalent Teachers                 266.3         of operating charter schools is
Pupil-Teacher Ratio   1
                                              23.5          560 (which includes 9 State
1
    The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the
                                                            Board of Education charters).
    number of full-time equivalent teachers. Because        Some charter schools are new,
    some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the
    Pupil-Teacher Ratio is usually smaller than the         while others are conversions
    average class size.                                     from existing public schools.
Source: California Department of Education, Educational     Charter schools are part of the
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06,
pubschls 8/4/06, sifb0506 8/22/06)
                                                            state's public education
                                                            system. For additional charter
                                                            information, click here.




                                                                                        129
Districts by Type                                                                                   With a few
                                                                                                    exceptions,
Orange County, 2005-06
                                                                                                    the typical
                         Number of                        Full-Time Equivalent    Pupil-Teacher
                         Districts         Enrollment     Teachers                Ratio1
                                                                                                    district grade
Elementary               12                98,291         4,489.0                 21.9
                                                                                                    configurations
                                                                                                    in California
High                     3                 65,168         2,527.0                 25.8
                                                                                                    are
Unified                  12                338,371        14,626.0                23.1
                                                                                                    elementary
County Office of
                         1                 8,284          454.0                   18.2              (K-8), high
Education
                                                                                                    (9-12), and
Total                    28                510,114        22,096.0                23.1
                                                                                                    unified (K-
1
    The Pupil-Teacher Ratio is enrollment divided by the number of full-time equivalent teachers.   12). Districts
    Because some teachers are not assigned to a classroom, the Pupil-Teacher Ratio is usually
    smaller than the average class size.                                                            sometimes
                                                                                                    merge or
Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05
8/18/06, pubschls 8/4/06, sifb0506 8/22/06)                                                         consolidate;
                                                                                                    the number
                                                                                                    of districts
                                                                                                    can change
                                                                                                    annually.

Enrollment by Grade                                     Enrollment is measured by counting
Orange County, 2005-06                                  the number of students enrolled in
                                                        school on a particular day in
                              Enrollment
                                                        October.
Kindergarten                  36,080

Grade 1                       37,989

Grade 2                       37,121

Grade 3                       38,004

Grade 4                       38,385

Grade 5                       38,999

Grade 6                       39,704

Grade 7                       40,482

Grade 8                       40,853

Grade 9                       43,778

Grade 10                      41,695

Grade 11                      39,724

Grade 12                      34,821

Ungraded                      2,479

Total                         510,114

               Enrollment by Grade
               definitions




                                                                                                       130
               Pop-trends
Source: California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifb0506 8/22/06)




Average Class Size                                            Average class size is the
Orange County, 2005-06                                        number of students enrolled
                                                              in classes divided by the
                      County                     State
                                                              number of classes. The data
                      Number of
                      Classes1
                                    Average
                                    Class Size
                                                 Average
                                                 Class Size
                                                              in this table is calculated
                                                              using the California
Schoolwide            49,747        28.9         27.3
                                                              Department of Education's
Kindergarten          1,451         24.9         20.5
                                                              "filtered" definition of
Grade 1               1,863         19.4         19.3         average class size.
Grade 2               1,827         19.4         19.2

Grade 3               1,727         21.1         19.7

Grade 4               1,178         30.2         28.9

Grade 5               1,152         30.6         29.3

Grade 6               979           29.9         29.3

Grade 7               2             21.5         26.9

Grade 8               1             25.0         26.1

K-3 Combinations      392           18.9         18.6

3-4 Combinations      88            23.8         21.5

4-8 Combinations      242           28.2         26.0

Continuation          7             23.6         17.7

CommunityDay          6             28.7         12.6

Other Self-
                      139           30.0         20.2
Contained

English               8,675         28.0         26.1

Math                  6,685         29.8         27.8

Social Science        5,168         31.7         29.7

Science               5,255         31.6         29.8

1
    Counts exclude special education classes, classes with
    zero enrollment or enrollment over 50, and other minor
    items.


               Average Class Size definitions
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06, asgncode
8/18/06, paif05 8/18/06)




                                                                                      131
Technology by School Type
Orange County, 2005-06
               County         State

               Students per   Students per
               Computer       Computer

Elementary     5.0            4.9

Middle         4.5            4.6

High           4.6            4.2

Continuation   2.7            2.8

Alternative    3.7            4.3

Community
               2.0            2.3
Day


Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifade05 8/23/06, sifgl05 9/6/06, pubschls 8/4/06)
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D05
%26reportNumber%3D16


ED-L-2

District Profile        FISCAL YEAR: 2005-06
    Irvine Unified                                                This page includes:
   School District                      Schools by Type                            Enrollment by Grade
 5050 Barranca Pkwy.
                                        Charter Schools                            Average Class Size
  Irvine, CA 92604-
         4652                                                                      Technology by School
  Phone (949) 936-                                                                 Type
         5000                                             Related links:
   CDS: 30 - 73650                        Teacher Salaries Compare Districts                                   Definitions
                                      This site reports data for California's K-12 public school system only
District Web Site

Questions about the
data?


California’s public education system is immense:
more than six million students in about 9,500
schools, governed by almost 1,000 elected


                                                                                                               132
school boards regulated by a complex Education Code and a finance
system that is largely controlled by the Legislature and governor.

These Ed-Data Profiles provide a comprehensive picture of each
school, district and county, with statewide totals and links to additional
data or explanations. The Profiles are organized in three sections:
General, Students and Staffing. Click on the tabs to move between
them.

In addition to the comprehensive information in the profiles, the site
provides detailed financial statements for county offices of education
and school districts. Use the pull-down menu to select these reports,
or click here to go to the Financial Reports for District or Financial
Reports for County Office. Individual schools do not have financial
reports because school-level financial data is not collected by the
state.

For years about 10% of California students attended private schools;
the proportion has declined slightly in the last few years to closer to
9%. To obtain the most current data on private school enrollment,
click here.

Schools by Type                                             Schools vary in their grade-
                                                            level configuration. Most
Irvine Unified School District, 2005-
                                                            elementary schools encompass
06
                                                            K-5, middle schools 6-8, junior
               Number
               of
                                  Full-Time  Pupil-
                                  Equivalent Teacher
                                                            high 7-9, and high schools 9-
               Schools Enrollment Teachers   Ratio          12.
Elementary     22      12,927       566.0       22.8

Middle         5       3,833        148.0       25.9

High School    4       8,433        330.6       25.5

Alternative    1       109          4.6         23.7

Continuation 1         194          11.8        16.4

Total          33      25,496       1,061.0     24.0

              Schools by Type definitions
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06,
pubschls 8/4/06, sfib0506 8/22/06)




Charter Schools                                        Since the enabling legislation was
Irvine Unified School District,                        passed in 1992, the number of



                                                                                        133
2005-06                                             approved charter schools has
                                                    increased annually. The 2005-06
Charter Schools information is not available for
this district.                                      count of operating charter schools
                                                    is 560 (which includes 9 State
                                                    Board of Education charters). Some
                                                    charter schools are new, while
                                                    others are conversions from
                                                    existing public schools. Charter
                                                    schools are part of the state's
                                                    public education system. For
                                                    additional charter information, click
                                                    here.

Enrollment by Grade                                Enrollment is measured by counting
                                                   the number of students enrolled in
Irvine Unified School District,
                                                   school on a particular day in
2005-06
                                                   October.
                           Enrollment

Kindergarten               1,554

Grade 1                    1,621

Grade 2                    1,757

Grade 3                    1,869

Grade 4                    1,840

Grade 5                    1,924

Grade 6                    2,047

Grade 7                    2,044

Grade 8                    2,158

Grade 9                    2,185

Grade 10                   2,247

Grade 11                   2,106

Grade 12                   2,144

Total                      25,496

               Enrollment by Grade
               definitions
               Pop-trends
Source: California Department of Education,
Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifb0506 8/22/06)




Average Class Size                                         Average class size is the
                                                           number of students enrolled


                                                                                      134
Irvine Unified School District, 2005-06                        in classes divided by the
                                                               number of classes. The data
                       District                   County
                                                               in this table is calculated
                       Number of
                       Classes1
                                     Average
                                     Class Size
                                                  Average
                                                  Class Size
                                                               using the California
                                                               Department of Education's
Schoolwide             2,735         29.0         28.9
                                                               "filtered" definition of
Kindergarten           58            27.9         24.9
                                                               average class size.
Grade 1                84            18.9         19.4

Grade 2                87            19.3         19.4

Grade 3                95            19.7         21.1

Grade 4                54            31.8         30.2

Grade 5                59            32.7         30.6

Grade 6                54            33.3         29.9

Grade 7                1             20.0         21.5

K-3 Combinations       32            18.1         18.9

3-4 Combinations       6             13.5         23.8

4-8 Combinations       19            26.4         28.2

CommunityDay           2             8.0          28.7

English                394           28.6         28.0

Math                   368           29.5         29.8

Social Science         271           30.2         31.7

Science                333           31.9         31.6

1
    Counts exclude special education classes, classes with
    zero enrollment or enrollment over 50, and other minor
    items.


               Average Class Size definitions
               Pop-trends
Source: California Department of Education, Educational
Demographics Office (CBEDS, assign05 8/18/06, asgncode
8/18/06, paif05 8/18/06)




Technology by School Type
Irvine Unified School District,
2005-06
                 District          County

                 Students per      Students per
                 Computer          Computer

Elementary       4.6               5.0

Middle           5.4               4.5




                                                                                       135
 High              5.3                  4.6

 Continuation 2.6                       2.7

 Alternative       3.0                  3.7



Source: California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Office (CBEDS,
sifade05 8/23/06, sifgl05 9/6/06, pubschls 8/4/06).
http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D05
%26reportNumber%3D16



4. Research Area “Public Policies”


                                                      PUBLIC POLICY

NATIONAL PUBLIC POLICY
P-N-1-1
What is the “Participation Gap”?
―The total number of additional students the U.S. would need to enroll by 2015, given
demographic projections, if it were to match the participation rate of the best-performing
(―benchmark‖) states = 8,044,374 new postsecondary students.”
Students age 18-24 =                          4,202,609
Students age 25+ =                            3,841,765
PARTICIPATION GAP =                           8,044,374 new postsecondary students

Postsecondary Participation
Student # of                      Projected           %                Projected           %                  PARTICIPATION
Age     Students                  # of                Change           # of                Change             GAP
        in 2000                   Students            2000-15          Students            2000-15            In 2015
                                  In 2015             at current       in 2015             to reach
                                  at current rate     rate             at benchmark        benchmark
                                                                       rate
18-24         9,169,305           10,365,435          +13%             14,568,044          +59%               4,202,609
25+           8,179,962           9,226,735           +13%             13,068,500          +60%               3,841,765
All (18+)     17,349,267          19,592,170          +13%             27,636,544          +59%               8,044,374
Source: Closing the College Participation Gap: U.S. Profile, Ted Sanders, ECS President, Education Commission of the States, October, 2003.


P-N-2-1
Closing the College Participation Gap – U.S. Profile
―Community colleges are pivotal in meeting our nation’s expanding needs for
postsecondary education and access to advanced training and lifelong learning
opportunities. State policymakers are looking to colleges to provide access to increasing
numbers of students, retraining for displaced workers and those leaving the welfare rolls,
support for K-12 reform efforts and leadership in state and community economic
development efforts…


                                                                                                                                     136
Our future well-being doesn’t rest solely on whether we increase postsecondary
participation. But if we don’t our chances for increased prosperity are greatly
diminished. Access to affordable and high-quality education and training beyond high
school (what we refer to here as ―postsecondary education‖ or ―college‖) is fundamental
to our social and economic development, both as individuals and as a society…
In a majority of states, the elements of a ―perfect storm‖ are gathering. State budget
deficits have accelerated a decrease in the proportion of state funds allocated for
postsecondary education and training. Student tuition and fees are also on the rise, while
financial aid for needy students wanes. These events are occurring at the same time that
demand is projected to grow across all age groups as shifting demographics collide with
the effects of a lagging economy…

Clearly, state policy leaders are overloaded with urgent priorities right now-homeland
security, welfare reform, health care and K-12 education, among them. State budgets in
FY04 promise to be even leaner than in previous years.
Yet it remains vital to all our futures that states take steps to protect postsecondary access
now and prepare to serve a larger and more diverse group of students during the years
ahead. Closing the college participation gap that separates those with access from those
without it is not simply a matter of good economics; it’s about our quality of life as well.‖

“Chance for College” in the United States: 37.5%
―That means for every 100 students who enter 9th grade, about 38 are likely to graduate
high school four years later and enroll in college within a year.‖

“Chance for College” in the U.S. for low-income students = 23.1%
―Here’s how ―Chance for College‖ is measured: For every 100 students who enter 9th
grade, about 67 are likely to graduate high school four years later. Of those 67 students
who graduate high school, about 38 (or 57%) are likely to enroll in college within a
year.‖
Source: Closing the College Participation Gap: U.S. Profile, Ted Sanders, ECS President, Education Commission of the States,
October, 2003.


P-N-3-1
―Although a record number of Americans are enrolled in college, if current trends persist,
the nation is likely to slip further behind the growing number of developed nations that
have stepped up their efforts to increase the education of their citizens. This report
documents the risk that the current level of postsecondary participation poses for the
nation’s ability to raise levels of educational attainment. It examines the nature and
extent of postsecondary participation in the United States, relates that information to
certain social and economic characteristics of the population, and describes ways in
which the outcomes can vary state to state.‖
Source: Closing the College Participation Gap: A National Summary, Sandra S. Ruppert, 2003.


P-N-4-1
―By 2015, more than 66% of the American population will be age 25 or older, a gain of
more than 23 million adults from the 2000 census. With most of tomorrow’s jobs likely


                                                                                                                               137
to be filled by today’s workers, the authors examines how the nation can ensure that
adults at every level acquire the knowledge and skills they need to keep up with a
changing workplace, what impact changing demographics and new workforce
requirements will have on adult demands for access to postsecondary education, and what
state policymakers can do to accommodate these demands.‖
Source: The Adult Learning Gap: Why States Need to Change Their Policies Toward Adult Learners, Alice Anne Bailey and James
R. Mingle, 2003.

P-N-5-1
―Most state policymakers and education leaders are keenly aware that educational
attainment and state performance are inextricably linked to the future economy and
quality of life in their states. But few are knowledgeable about how to identify and
respond to the educational needs of their populations and achieve methodology for
assessing ―key client groups’‖ needs for community college services and describes the
policy tools and strategies available to policymakers who want to address these needs.‖
Source: Narrowing the Gaps in Educational Attainment Within States: A Policymaker’s Guide to Assessing and Responding to
Needs for Community College Services, Aims C. McGuinness, Jr. and Dennis P. Jones, 2003.



P-N-6-1

                                                    Question:
                          What are the trends in the cost of college education?
                                                    Response:
For the 2004–05 academic year, annual prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board
were estimated to be $9,877 at public colleges and $26,025 at private colleges. Between
    1994–95 and 2004–05, prices for undergraduate tuition, room, and board at public
 colleges rose by 30 percent, and prices at private colleges increased by 26 percent, after
                                 adjustment for inflation

    SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
       (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–030), Chapter 3.

               Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board rates
               charged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, by
               type and control of institution: Selected years, 1984-85 to 2004-05
               Year and control All                             4-year                  2-year
               of institution   institutions                    institutions            institutions
                                                    All institutions
               1984-85                    $4,563                $5,160                  $3,179
               1994-95                    8,306                 9,728                   4,633
               2000-01                    10,818                12,922                  5,460
               2001-02                    11,380                13,639                  5,718
               2002-03                    12,014                14,439                  6,252
               2003-04                    12,955                15,504                  6,716


                                                                                                                           138
             2004-051             13,743          16,465          7,020
                                        Public institutions
             1984-85              $3,408          $3,682          $2,807
             1994-95              5,965           6,670           4,137
             2000-01              7,586           8,653           4,839
             2001-02              8,022           9,196           5,137
             2002-03              8,502           9,787           5,601
             2003-04              9,249           10,674          6,020
                        1
             2004-05              9,877           11,441          6,334
                                                           2
                                       Private institutions
             1984-85              $8,202          $8,451          $6,203
             1994-95              16,207          16,602          11,170
             2000-01              21,368          21,856          14,788
             2001-02              22,413          22,896          15,825
             2002-03              23,340          23,787          17,753
             2003-04              24,636          25,083          19,559
                        1
             2004-05              26,025          26,489          19,899
                  1
                      Preliminary data based on fall 2003 enrollment weights.
2
    Data for private 2-year colleges must be interpreted with caution, because of their low
                                       response rate.

NOTE: Data are for the entire academic year and are average total charges for full-time
   attendance. Some data have been revised from previously published figures.

            Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)

        2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 313. Average undergraduate
        tuition, fees, room, and board charged for full-time students in degree-granting
        institutions, by type and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2003-04
                                           and 2004-05
       2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 314. Average undergraduate
          tuition and fees and room and board rates of degree-granting institutions, by
        control and type of institution and percentile of students: 2003-04 and 2004-05
      2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 315. Average graduate and first-
         professional tuition and required fees in degree-granting institutions, by first-
           professional discipline and control of institution: 1987-88 through 2004-05
                2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Paying for college




                                                                                        139
                   Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)

           2005, 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04)
           Undergraduate Financial Aid Estimates for 2003-04 by Type of Institution
                  2005, Changes in Patterns of Prices and Financial Aid
       2005, Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2004 and Degrees and
                              Other Awards Conferred: 2003-04
           2003, Congressionally Mandated Studies of College Costs and Prices
          2002, What Students Pay for College: Changes in Net Price of College
                        Attendance Between 1992-93 and 1999-2000


SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–030), Table 312.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76




                                      Question:
               How much do colleges and universities spend on students?

                                      Response:
Trend data show small increases in the current-fund expenditures per student at public 2-
year and 4-year colleges and universities in the late 1980s and larger increases during the
    1990s. After an adjustment for inflation at colleges and universities, current-fund
 expenditures per student at public colleges rose about 5 percent between 1985–86 and
            1990–91, and another 28 percent between 1990–91 and 2000–01.

   SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
      (2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006–030), Chapter 3.

         Current-fund expenditures per full-time equivalent student in degree-
         granting institutions, by type and control of institution: Selected years,
         1970-71 to 2000-01
         [In constant 2004-05 dollars]
         Control of
         institution and       All               4-year           2-year
         year                  institutions      institutions     institutions
                                      All institutions
         1970-71               $16,741           $19,740          $11,227



                                                                                       140
       1975-76              15,858           19,807           17,600
       1980-81              16,072           20,055           18,173
       1985-86              19,212           23,946           21,096
       1990-91              20,946           26,417           25,041
       1995-96              22,867           28,879           29,184
                                  Public institutions
       1970-71              14,610           17,945           10,120
       1975-76              13,876           18,228           16,564
       1980-81              14,086           18,454           16,823
       1985-86              16,696           21,683           19,395
       1990-91              17,606           23,169           23,245
       1995-96              19,131           25,534           26,824
       1999-2000            21,506           28,597           31,079
       2000-01              22,559           30,625           32,589
                                 Private institutions
       1970-71              22,656           23,452           1,108
       1975-76              22,461           23,281           1,037
       1980-81              22,135           23,380           1,350
       1985-86              26,584           28,615           1,702
       1990-91              31,354           33,327           1,796
       1995-96              34,079           35,466           2,360

NOTE: Constant dollars based on the Consumer Price Index, prepared by the Bureau of
    Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, adjusted to a school-year basis.
       Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)
    2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 340. Current-fund expenditures
        and educational and general expenditures of degree-granting institutions, by
             purpose and per student: Selected years, 1929-30 through 1995-96
    2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 341. Current-fund expenditures
     of public degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution: 2000-01
    2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 342. Current-fund expenditures
         of public degree-granting institutions, by purpose: Selected years, 1980-81
                                      through 2000-01
    2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 343. Current-fund expenditures
       of public degree-granting institutions, by state or jurisdiction: Selected years,
                                 1980-81 through 2000-01




                                                                                    141
             2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 344. Educational and general
                expenditures of public degree-granting institutions, by state or jurisdiction:
                                  Selected years, 1980-81 through 2000-01
            2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 345. Voluntary support for
              degree-granting institutions, by source and purpose of support: Selected years,
                                           1959-60 through 2003-04
            2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 346. Total expenditures of
                 private not-for-profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of
                                    institution: 1996-97 through 2002-03
            2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 347. Total expenditures of
                 private not-for-profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of
                                              institution: 2002-03
            2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 348. Total expenditures of
            private for-profit degree-granting institutions, by purpose and type of institution:
                                             2001-02 and 2002-03
            2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 349. Total expenditures of
            private not-for-profit and for-profit degree-granting institutions, by level and state
                                  or jurisdiction: 1996-97 through 2002-03
          2006, The Condition of Education 2006: International Comparisons of
           Expenditures for Education

                      Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)

         2006, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2004; Graduation Rates,
                1998 & 2001 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2004
    2005, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2003; Graduation Rates 1997
                   & 2000 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2003
    2004, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics,
                                         Fiscal Year 2002
             2004, Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2003
      2003, A Study of Higher Education Instructional Expenditures: The Delaware
                          Study of Instructional Costs and Productivity
           2003, Congressionally Mandated Studies of College Costs and Prices
     2003, What Colleges Contribute: Institutional Aid to Full-Time Undergraduates
                          Attending 4-Year Colleges and Universities
                                              
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2006). Digest of Education Statistics, 2005 (NCES 2006-030), Table 339.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=75


                                           Question:
       Do you have any statistics on financial aid for postsecondary undergraduates?



                                                                                              142
                                         Response:
        NCES sponsors the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), a
 comprehensive nationwide study designed to determine how students and their families
       pay for postsecondary education, and to describe some demographic and other
characteristics of those enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample
  of students in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate,
 and first-professional students. Students attending all types and levels of institutions are
   represented, including public and private not-for-profit and for-profit institutions, and
  less-than-2-year institutions, community colleges, and 4-year colleges and universities.
   The NPSAS studies are designed to address policy questions resulting from the rapid
 growth of financial aid programs and the succession of changes in financial aid program
                                    policies since 1986.

   Highlights from 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04)
 Undergraduate Financial Aid Estimates for 2003-04 by Type of Institution include the
                                    following:
                                 All Institutions

           Sixty-three percent of all undergraduates enrolled in 2003–04 received some type
             of financial aid. Undergraduates were more likely to receive grants than student
            loans in 2003–04, but the average grant amount was less than the average student
             loan amount. About one-half (51 percent) of undergraduates received grants and
            about one-third (35 percent) took out student loans. The average amount of grants
               received was $4,000, and the average amount borrowed by undergraduates in
                                           2003–04 was $5,800.

            Undergraduates enrolled in 2003–04 were more likely to receive federal grants
              than grants from any other source. Twenty-eight percent of all undergraduates
               received federal grants (such as Federal Pell Grants or Federal Supplemental
               Educational Opportunity Grants), 18 percent received institutional grants, 15
             percent received state grants, and 15 percent received grants from other sources
              (e.g., employers, parents’ employers, or private foundations or organizations).


                                   Public 4-Year Institutions

           Sixty-nine percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 4-year institutions in
            2003–04 received some type of financial aid. About one-half (52 percent) of all
             undergraduates attending public 4-year institutions in 2003–04 received grants
            and 45 percent took out student loans. Those who were awarded grants received
              an average of $4,000 in grant funds, while those who took out student loans
                                     borrowed an average of $5,600.

           Twenty-seven percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 4-year institutions
             in 2003–04 received federal grants, 21 percent received institutional grants, 19
            percent received state grants, and 14 percent received grants from other sources



                                                                                           143
        such as employers or private organizations. The average federal grant amount was
          $2,800, the average institutional grant was $2,900, the average state grant was
             $2,200, and the average grant funded through other sources was $2,000.


                          Private Not-For-Profit 4-Year Institutions

        Eighty-three percent of all undergraduates attending private not-for-profit 4-year
         institutions received some type of financial aid in 2003–04. About three-fourths
            (73 percent) of the undergraduates enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-year
        institutions received grants and 56 percent took out student loans in 2003–04. The
            average grant amount was $7,700 and the average student loan was $6,900.

         One-half (50 percent) of all undergraduates enrolled in private not-for-profit 4-
           year institutions in 2003–04 received institutional grants, 28 percent received
          federal grants, 22 percent received state-funded grants, and 23 percent received
        grants from other sources such as private organizations or employers. The average
         institutional grant amount awarded to undergraduates at private not-for-profit 4-
        year institutions in 2003–04 was $7,100, the average federal grant was $3,000, the
           average state grant was $2,800, and the average grant from other sources was
                                               $2,900.



                                   Public 2-Year Institutions

       Forty-seven percent of all undergraduates enrolled in public 2-year institutions in
        2003–04 received some type of financial aid. Forty percent received grants and 12
         percent took out student loans. Although a smaller percentage of undergraduates
        attending public 2-year institutions received loans than grants, the average student
             loan amount ($3,600) was larger than the average grant amount ($2,200).

           Among undergraduates attending public 2-year institutions in 2003–04, 23
        percent received federal grants, 11 percent received state-funded grants, 8 percent
          received institutional grants, and 12 percent received grants from other sources
        such as employers or private organizations. The average federal grant was $2,300,
        the average state grant was $1,000, the average institutional grant was $1,200, and
                    the average grant awarded from other sources was $1,100.


                                Private For-Profit Institutions

            Among students attending private for-profit institutions, about 9 out of 10 (89
             percent) received some type of financial aid in 2003–04. About two-thirds (66
            percent) of the undergraduates enrolled in private for-profit institutions received
             grants and about three-fourths (73 percent) took out student loans in 2003–04.



                                                                                            144
     The average grant amount was $3,300 and the average student loan amount was
                                      $6,800.

   About one-half (53 percent) of all undergraduates at private for-profit institutions
    received a federal grant in 2003–04 (table 18). Eight percent received state grants,
       7 percent received institutional grants, and 13 percent received grants funded
                                    through other sources.


      Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)

           2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 316. Percentage of
       undergraduates receiving aid, by type and source of aid and selected student
                                   characteristics: 2003-04
      2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 317. Average amount of
    financial aid awarded to full-time, full-year undergraduates, by type and source of
                      aid and selected student characteristics: 2003-04
      2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 318. Average amount of
    financial aid awarded to part-time or part-year undergraduates, by type and source
                    of aid and selected student characteristics: 2003-04
   2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 319. Undergraduates enrolled
        full-time and part-time, by aid status, source of aid, and control and type of
                                     institution: 2003-04
   2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 320. Percentage of full-time,
      full-year undergraduates receiving aid, by type and source of aid received and
         control and type of institution: Selected years, 1992-93 through 2003-04
  2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 321. Percentage of part-time or
      part-year undergraduates receiving aid, by type and source of aid received and
         control and type of institution: Selected years, 1992-93 through 2003-04
 2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 322. Percentage of full-time and
      part-time undergraduates receiving aid, by federal aid program and control and
                                 type of institution: 2003-04
 2006, Digest of Education Statistics 2005, Table 327. State awards for need-based
     undergraduate scholarship and grant programs, by state: Selected years, 1989-90
                                       through 2003-04
        2006, The Condition of Education 2006: Federal Grants and Loans to
                                   Undergraduate Students
    2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Debt Burden of College Graduates
 2004, The Condition of Education 2004: Institutional Aid at 4-Year Colleges and
                                         Universities

                 Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
                  2005, Changes in Patterns of Prices and Financial Aid
            2004, A Decade of Undergraduate Student Aid: 1989-90 to 1999-2000


                                                                                    145
       2004, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2002 and Financial Statistics,
                                         Fiscal Year 2002
              2004, Federal Support for Education: Fiscal Years 1980 to 2003
         2004, Paying for College: Changes Between 1990 and 2000 for Full-Time
                                   Dependent Undergraduates
       2003, What Colleges Contribute: Institutional Aid to Full-Time Undergraduates
                           Attending 4-Year Colleges and Universities
        2002, Student Financing of Graduate and First-Professional Education, 1999-
            2000: Profiles of Students in Selected Degree Programs and Their Use of
                                          Assistantships
           2002, What Students Pay for College: Changes in Net Price of College
                          Attendance Between 1992-93 and 1999-2000
      2001, Middle Income Undergraduates: Where They Enroll and How They Pay for
                                         Their Education
                2001, Undergraduates Enrolled With Higher Sticker Prices
         2000, Low-Income Students: Who They Are and How They Pay for Their
                                            Education

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
(2005). 2003-04 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04) Undergraduate
Financial Aid Estimates for 2003-04 by Type of Institution (NCES 2005-163).
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31


P-N-7
Child Care. Recent state policy changes affecting the availability of assistance for low-
income families.
Source: Report to the ranking minority member, subcommittee on human resources, committee on ways and means, house of
representatives, May 2003. GAO-03-588




STATE PUBLIC POLICY
P-S-1
CALIFORNIA - What is the “Participation Gap”?
―The total number of additional students the U.S. would need to enroll by 2015, given
demographic projections, if it were to match the participation rate of the best-performing
(―benchmark‖) states.”
Students age 18-24 = 581,705
Students age 25+ =         0 (California is the benchmark state for students age 25+)
       581,705 new postsecondary students
Postsecondary Participation
Student # of                  Projected         %               Projected         %                PARTICIPATION
Age     Students              # of              Change          # of              Change           GAP
        in 2000               Students          2000-15         Students          2000-15          In 2015
                              In 2015           at current      in 2015           to reach
                              at current rate   rate            at benchmark      benchmark
                                                                rate




                                                                                                                        146
18-24       1,186,716   1,670,784   +41%   2,252,489   +90%   581,705
25+         1,357,149   1,583,312   +17%   1,583,312   +17%   0
All (18+)   2,543,865   3,254,096   +28%   3,835,801   +51%   581,705




                                                                        147
Source: State Profiles – California, Closing the College Participation Gap: U.S. Profile, Ted Sanders, ECS President, Education Commission of the States,
October, 2003.


P-S-2-2,3
Closing the College Participation Gap – State Profiles: California
―By closing the Participation Gap, the number of students age 18+ enrolled in college in
California would grow 51% in 15 years.

“Chance for College” in California = 32.1%
That means for every 100 students who enter 9th grade, about 32 are likely to graduate high
school four years later and enroll in college within a year.

“Chance for College” in California for low-income students = 22.2%”
Source: State Profiles – California, Closing the College Participation Gap, Education Commission of the States, 2003.




P-S-3-1
Facts-At-A-Glance: Child Welfare in California
  More than 700,000 children come into contact with the child welfare system annually.
  More than 91,000 children are in foster care.
  Of children who come into contact with the child welfare system, more than 50% are age 5 or
   under.
  Most children in foster care (77%) were removed from their homes for neglect-related
   reasons.
  Research shows that children from families with annual incomes below $15,000, as
   compared to children from families with annual incomes above $30,000, were over 22 times
   more likely to experience some form of maltreatment.
Source: Department of Social Services, State of California, September 23, 2003.
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb


P-S-4
Child Welfare System Improvements in California: 2003-2005: Early Implementation of Key
Reforms.
Source: Progress Report, Early Implementation, California Department of Social Services,
December 2005.
P-S-5
Impacts of Student Fee Increase and Budget Changes on Enrollment and Financial Aid in the
California Community Colleges.
Source: A Report to the Legislature, pursuant to provisions of the 2003-2004 Budget Act.
Chancellor’s Office California Community Colleges, April 2005.



P-S-6
California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan. Education and the Economy: Shaping
California’s Future Today.
Source: The California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan Steering Committee. Report
to the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, January 17, 2006.

P-S-7
Education Code Section 87482.6 (75/25 Full-time to Part-time Ratio).

P-S-8
It could happen: Unleashing the Potential of California’s Community Colleges to Help Students
Succeed and California Thrive. Nancy Shulock, Colleen Moore, Jeremy Offenstein, Mary Kirlin,
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. February 2008.

P-S-9
Beyond the Open Door: Increasing Student Success in the California Community Colleges.
Colleen Moore and Nancy Shulock, with Miguel Ceja, Department of Public Policy and
Administration and
David M. Lang, Department of Economics, California State University, Sacramento. August
2007


LOCAL PUBLIC POLICY
P-L-1

Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates
Model-based Estimates for States, Counties & School Districts

All ages in poverty
   ID State and                    90% Confidence                      90% Confidence
      County             Number Interval                  Percent      Interval
06000California          4,846,449 4,650,057 to 5,042,841 13.8         13.2 to 14.3
06059Orange County       76,859    56,907 to 96,811       13.6         10.1 to 17.1

Ages 0-17 in poverty

   ID  State and                   90% Confidence                      90% Confidence
     County              Number Interval                  Percent      Interval
06000California          1,872,095 1,763,205 to 1,980,986 19.6         18.5 to 20.7
06059Orange County       76,859    56,907 to 96,811       13.6         10.1 to 17.1


Age 5-17 in families in poverty, 2003

   ID  State and                   90% Confidence                      90% Confidence
     County              Number Interval                  Percent      Interval
06000California          1,292,920 1,203,566 to 1,382,274 18.9         17.6 to 20.2
06059Orange County       76,859    56,907 to 96,811       13.6         10.1 to 17.1


                                                                                          149
Under age 5 in poverty, 2003

   ID  State and                       90% Confidence                        90% Confidence
     County                Number      Interval                  Percent     Interval
06000California            521,138     462,163 to 580,113        20.1        17.8 to 22.3
06059Orange County         NA          NA                        NA          NA


Median household income, in dollars, 2003

  ID        State and County                 Estimate       90% Confidence Interval
06000     California                      48,440            47,147 to 49,734
06059     Orange County                   55,861            53,130 to 58,733

Poverty Estimates for California School Districts, 2003

           District Grade range of   Total                              'Relevant' age Reference
District Name       responsibility population 'Relevant'             5 to 17 in        Map
ID                                            age 5 to 17            families in
                                                                     poverty
          IRVINE
0684500           KG-12                  148,088        26,324       1,659               Map
          UNIFIED
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates for California counties, 2003.
http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/saipe/saipe.cgi?year=2003&type=county&table=county&submit=States%20%26%20Counti
es&areas=all&display_data=Display%20Data&state=06#SA51




5. Research Area “Social Trends”


                                    SOCIAL TRENDS
                     Environmental Scanning - National, State, and Local
NATIONAL SOCIAL TRENDS
S-N-1-1,3,4,8,9
Summary:
The growing number of older adults increases demands on the public health system and on
medical and social services. Chronic diseases, which affect older adults disproportionately,
contribute to disability; diminish quality of life, and increased health- and long-term--care costs.
Increased life expectancy reflects, in part, the success of public health interventions (2), but



                                                                                                 150
public health programs must now respond to the challenges created by this achievement,
including the growing burden of chronic illnesses, injuries, and disabilities and increasing
concerns about future caregiving and health-care costs. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, the
World Health Organization, and the United Nations on U.S. and global trends in aging, including
demographic and epidemiologic transitions, increasing medical and social costs related to aging,
and the implications for public health.


Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging --- United States and
Worldwide
The median age of the world's population is increasing because of a decline in fertility and a 20-
year increase in the average life span during the second half of the 20th century (1). These
factors, combined with elevated fertility in many countries during the 2 decades after World War
II (i.e., the "Baby Boom"), will result in increased numbers of persons aged >65 years during
2010--2030 (2). Worldwide, the average life span is expected to extend another 10 years by 2050
(1). The growing number of older adults increases demands on the public health system and on
medical and social services. Chronic diseases, which affect older adults disproportionately,
contribute to disability, diminish quality of life, and increased health- and long-term--care costs.
Increased life expectancy reflects, in part, the success of public health interventions (2), but
public health programs must now respond to the challenges created by this achievement,
including the growing burden of chronic illnesses, injuries, and disabilities and increasing
concerns about future caregiving and health-care costs. This report presents data from the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations on U.S. and global
trends in aging, including demographic and epidemiologic transitions, increasing medical and
social costs related to aging, and the implications for public health.

U.S. Trends
In the United States, the proportion of the population aged >65 years is projected to increase
from 12.4% in 2000 to 19.6% in 2030 (3). The number of persons aged >65 years is expected to
increase from approximately 35 million in 2000 to an estimated 71 million in 2030 (3), and the
number of persons aged >80 years is expected to increase from 9.3 million in 2000 to 19.5
million in 2030 (3). In 1995, the most populous states had the largest number of older persons;
nine states (California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and Texas) each had more than one million persons aged >65 years (4). In 1995, four states had
>15% of their population aged >65 years; Florida had the largest proportion (19%) (5). By 2025,
the proportion of Florida's population aged >65 years is projected to be 26% (5) and >15% in 48
states (all but Alaska and California) (5).
The sex distribution of older U.S. residents is expected to change only moderately. Women
represented 59% of persons aged >65 years in 2000 compared with an estimated 56% in 2030
(3). However, larger changes in the racial/ethnic composition of persons aged >65 years are
expected. From 2000 to 2030, the proportion of persons aged >65 years who are members of
racial minority groups (i.e., black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander) is
expected to increase from 11.3% to 16.5% (4); the proportion of Hispanics is expected to
increase from 5.6% to 10.9% (4).




                                                                                                151
Global Trends

In 2000, the worldwide population of persons aged >65 years was an estimated 420 million, a 9.5
million increase from 1999 (2). During 2000--2030, the worldwide population aged >65 years is
projected to increase by approximately 550 million to 973 million (3), increasing from 6.9% to
12.0% worldwide, from 15.5% to 24.3% in Europe, from 12.6% to 20.3% in North America,
from 6.0% to 12.0% in Asia, and from 5.5% to 11.6% in Latin America and the Caribbean (2). In
Sub-Saharan Africa, an area where both fertility and mortality rates are high, the proportion of
persons aged >65 years is expected to remain small, increasing from an estimated 2.9% in 2000
to 3.7% in 2030 (2). The largest increases in absolute numbers of older persons will occur in
developing countries*. During 2000--2030, the number of persons in developing countries aged
>65 years is projected to almost triple, from approximately 249 million in 2000 to an estimated
690 million in 2030 (3), and the developing countries' share of the world's population aged >65
years is projected to increase from 59% to 71% (2). However, migration patterns could influence
these projections.

The aging of the world's population is the result of two factors: declines in fertility and increases
in life expectancy (2). Fertility rates declined in developing countries during the preceding 30
years and in developed countries throughout the 20th century (2). In addition, in developed
countries, the largest gain ever in life expectancy at birth occurred during the 20th century,
averaging 71% for females and 66% for males (2). Life expectancy at birth in developed
countries now ranges from 76 to 80 years (2). Life expectancy also has increased in developing
countries since 1950, although the amount of increase varied. A higher life expectancy at birth
for females compared with males is almost universal. The average sex differential in 2000 was
approximately 7 years in Europe and North America but less in developing countries (2).

Demographic Transition
The world has experienced a gradual demographic transition from patterns of high fertility and
high mortality rates to low fertility and delayed mortality (2). The transition begins with
declining infant and childhood mortality, in part because of effective public health measures (2).
Lower childhood mortality contributes initially to a longer life expectancy and a younger
population. Declines in fertility rates generally follow, and improvements in adult health lead to
an older population. As a result of demographic transitions, the shape of the global age
distribution is changing. By 1990, the age distribution in developed countries represented similar
proportions of younger and older persons (Figure) (2). For developing countries, age distribution
is projected to have similar proportions by 2030 (2).


Epidemiologic Transition

The world also has experienced an epidemiologic transition in the leading causes of death, from
infectious disease and acute illness to chronic disease and degenerative illness. Developed
countries in North America, Europe, and the Western Pacific already have undergone this
epidemiologic transition, and other countries are at different stages of progression. In 2001, the



                                                                                                  152
leading causes of death in developed countries, which had low child and delayed adult mortality,
were primarily cardiovascular diseases and cancer, followed by respiratory diseases and injuries
(6). The leading causes of death in African countries, which had high child and adult mortality,
were infectious and parasitic diseases (e.g., human immunodeficiency virus/acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome, malaria, childhood diseases, and diarrheal disease), respiratory
infections, perinatal conditions, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and injuries (6).

The epidemiologic transition, combined with the increasing number of older persons, represents
a challenge for public health. In the United States, approximately 80% of all persons aged >65
years have at least one chronic condition, and 50% have at least two (7). Diabetes, which causes
excess morbidity and increased health-care costs, affects approximately one in five (18.7%)
persons aged >65 years, and as the population ages, the impact of diabetes will intensify (7). The
largest increases in diabetes are expected among adults aged >75 years, from 1.2 million women
and 0.8 million men in 2000 to 4.4 million women and 4.2 million men in 2050 (8). As U.S.
adults live longer, the prevalence of Alzheimer's disease, which doubles every 5 years after age
65, also is expected to increase (7). Approximately 10% of adults aged >65 years and 47% of
adults aged >85 years suffer from this degenerative and debilitating disease (7).

Chronic conditions also can lead to severe disability. For example, in the United States, arthritis
affects approximately 59% of persons aged >65 years and is the leading cause of disability (9).
However, some studies have shown that disability can be postponed through healthier lifestyles
(10). Disability among older U.S. adults, as measured by limitations in instrumental activities of
daily living, has declined since the early 1980s (11). Disability also is measured by limitations in
activities of daily living (ADL), a common factor leading to the need for long-term care (11).
Recent studies using ADL measures have shown varied trends in disability (11).

Impact on Medical and Social Services
The increased number of persons aged >65 years will potentially lead to increased health-care
costs. The health-care cost per capita for persons aged >65 years in the United States and other
developed countries is three to five times greater than the cost for persons aged <65 years, and
the rapid growth in the number of older persons, coupled with continued advances in medical
technology, is expected to create upward pressure on health- and long-term--care spending (12).
In 1997, the United States had the highest health-care spending per person aged >65 years
($12,100), but other developed countries also spent substantial amounts per person aged >65
years, ranging from approximately $3,600 in the United Kingdom to approximately $6,800 in
Canada (13). However, the extent of spending increases will depend on other factors in addition
to aging (12).

The demands associated with long-term care might pose the greatest challenge for both
personal/family resources and public resources. In the United States, nursing home and home
health-care expenditures doubled during 1990--2001, reaching approximately $132 billion (14);
of this, public programs (i.e., Medicaid and Medicare) paid 57%, and patients or their families
paid 25% (14). In addition, during 2000--2020, public financing of long-term care is projected to
increase 20%--21% in the United Kingdom and the United States and 102% in Japan (15).



                                                                                                153
However, these increases will be less if public health interventions decrease disability among
older persons, helping them to live independently.

The projected growth in the elderly support ratio (i.e., the number of persons aged >65 years per
100 persons aged 20--64 years) also is a concern (2). If the number of working taxpayers relative
to the number of older persons declines, inadequate public resources and fewer adults will be
available to provide informal care to older, less able family members and friends. However, the
ratio does not account for potential increases in the numbers of persons aged >65 years who
continue to work and/or care for themselves.

Reported by: MR Goulding, PhD, Div of Health and Utilization Analysis, National Center for
Health Statistics; ME Rogers, MPH, SM Smith, MD, Div of Adult and Community Health,
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC.

Editorial Note:
The anticipated increase in the number of older persons will have dramatic consequences for
public health, the health-care financing and delivery systems, informal caregiving, and pension
systems. Although more attention has been given to population aging projections and their
implications in developed countries, greater numbers of older adults and increasing chronic
disease will place further strain on resources in countries where basic public health concerns
(e.g., control of infectious diseases and maternal and child health) are yet to be addressed fully.

To address the challenges posed by an aging population, public health agencies and community
organizations worldwide should continue expanding their traditional scope from infectious
diseases and maternal/child health to include health promotion in older adults, prevention of
disability, maintenance of capacity in those with frailties and disabilities, and enhancement of
quality of life. Because behaviors that place persons at risk for disease often originate early in
life, the public health system should support healthy behaviors throughout a person's lifetime
(16). Public health also should develop and support better methods and systems to monitor
additional health outcomes that are related to older adults, such as functioning and quality of life.

CDC's Advisory Committee to the Director has identified five roles for CDC to promote health
and prevent disease in older adults: 1) to provide high-quality health information and resources
to public health professionals, consumers, health-care providers, and aging experts; 2) to support
health-care providers and health-care organizations in prevention efforts; 3) to integrate public
health prevention expertise with the aging services network; 4) to identify and implement
effective prevention efforts; and 5) to monitor changes in the health of older adults. These roles
will require new efforts to address the special needs of older adults and to deliver programs in
communities in which older adults work, reside, and congregate. Existing public health programs
will be required to examine whether they meet the needs of an aging population.

References
   1. United Nations. Report of the Second World Assembly on Aging. Madrid, Spain: United
      Nations, April 8--12, 2002.


                                                                                                 154
2. Kinsella K, Velkoff V. U.S. Census Bureau. An Aging World: 2001. Washington, DC:
    U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001; series P95/01-1.
3. U.S. Census Bureau. International database. Table 094. Midyear population, by age and
    sex. Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/natdet-D1A.html.
4. U.S. Census Bureau. State and national population projections. Available at
    http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html.
5. Campbell PR. Population projections for states by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin:
    1995 to 2025. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Division, PPL-47, 1996. Available
    at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html.
6. World Health Organization. World Health Report 2002, Annex Table 2 (deaths by cause,
    sex and mortality stratum in WHO Regions, estimates for 2001). Geneva, Switzerland:
    World Health Organization, 2002:186--91.
7. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Chronic
    disease notes and reports: special focus. Healthy Aging 1999;12:3.
8. Boyle JP, Honeycutt AA, Narayan KMV, et al. Projection of diabetes burden through
    2050: impact of changing demography and disease prevalence in the US. Diabetes Care
    2001;24:1936--40.
9. CDC. Prevalence of self-reported arthritis or chronic joint symptoms among adults---
    United States, 2001. MMWR 2002;51:948--50.
10. Hubert H, Bloch D, Oehlert J, Fries J. Lifestyle habits and compression of morbidity.
    Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 2002;57A:347--51.
11. Freedman VA, Martin LG, Schoeni RF. Recent trends in disability and functioning
    among older adults in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA 2002;288:3137--46.
12. Jacobzone S, Oxley H. Ageing and Health Care Costs. Internationale Politik und
    Gesellschaft Online (International Politics and Society) 1/2002. Available at
    http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/folder/ipg/ipg1_2002/artjacobzone.htm.
13. Anderson GF, Hussey PS. Population aging: a comparison among industrialized
    countries. Health Affairs 2000;19:191--203.
14. Levit K, Smith C, Cowan C, Lazenby H, Sensenig A, Catlin A. Trends in U.S. health care
    spending, 2001. Health Affairs 2003;22:154--64.
15. Jacobzone S. Coping with aging: international challenges. Health Affairs 2000;19:213--
    25.
16. Koplan JP, Fleming DW. Current and future public health challenges. JAMA
    2000;284:1696--8.




                                                                                      155
156
Source: Public Health and Aging: Trends in Aging --- United States and Worldwide Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 52(06);101-106,
February 14, 2003, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5206a2.htm


S-N-2-1
Number of Jobs Held, Labor Market Activity, and Earnings Growth Among Younger
Baby Boomers: Results from More Than Two Decades of a Longitudinal Survey
―The average person born in the later years of the baby boom held nearly 10 jobs from ages 18 to
36, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. More than two-
thirds of these jobs were held in the first half of the period, from ages 18 to 27.

Highlights from the survey include:
--Persons born from 1957 to 1964 held an average of 9.6 jobs from ages 18 to 36. These baby
boomers held an average of 4.4 jobs while ages 18 to 22. The average fell to 3.2 jobs while ages
23 to 27, to 2.6 jobs while ages 28 to 32, and to 2.0 jobs from ages 33 to 36. Jobs that span more
than one age group were counted once in each age group, so the average number of jobs held
from age 18 to age 36 is less than the sum of the number of jobs across the individual age
groups.

--The average individual was employed during nearly 76 percent of the weeks occurring from
age 18 to age 36. Generally, men spent a larger percent of weeks employed than did women (83
percent versus 68 percent). Women spent much more time out of the labor force (27 percent of
weeks) than did men (11 percent of weeks).

--The annual percent growth in inflation-adjusted hourly earnings was fastest from ages 18 to 22.
Growth rates in earnings generally were higher for those who obtained more education.

--About 1 in 5 individuals ages 35 to 43 in 2000 reported that they had received a promotion
from their employer between 1997 and 1999.‖
Source: U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, August 27, 2002. http://www.bls.gov/nls/




S-N-3
The State of the Nation’s Housing, 2006.
Source: Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2006.


S-N-4
Child Care. Recent state policy changes affecting the availability of assistance for low-income
families.
Source: Report to the ranking minority member, subcommittee on human resources, committee on ways and means, house of representatives,
May 2003. GAO-03-588

S-N-5
The Asian Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce. Issued
February 2002.

S-N-6


                                                                                                                                    157
The Arab Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce. Issued February
2002


STATE SOCIAL TRENDS

S-S-1-1

Estimate That Ten Million Will Be Voting Today. Big Increase Over 2002 Turnout. Expect 2.6
Million to Have Voted By Absentee.
―In today’s historic recall election The Field Poll estimates that as many as ten million California
voters will be participating in the decision as to who they want as Governor for the next three
years. A turnout of this magnitude would represent a 30% increase over the 7.7 million voters
who participated in the 2002 gubernatorial election and would be larger than any previous non-
presidential contest in state history…

The Secretary of State’s office last Friday reported that there are currently 15,380,536 registered
voters in the state, representing 70.5% of the state’s 21.5 million citizen-eligible adults, similar to
the 15.3 million on the rolls in the last general election.‖
Source: The Field Poll, Mark DiCamillo and Mervin Field, Field Research Corporation, October, 2003.


S-S-2
Research Brief: The links between income inequality, housing markets, and homelessness in
California.

Source: Research Brief. Public Policy Institute of California, Issue# 50, September 2001.




LOCAL SOCIAL TRENDS
S-L-1
The City of Irvine has reached the halfway point of its projected employment and population
growth. Population growth as a yearly percentage has slowed considerably as the City has
matured. Between 1970 and 1980, population increases averaged 20% per year. Between 1980
and 1990, the average increase dropped to 8% per year; and since 1990, the annual increase has
averaged 2% per year.
Because the City of Irvine is a relatively new City and started with a young population base, only
12.7% of Irvine's population was in the over-55 category in 1990. By the year 2020, however,
28% of the City's population is expected to be over 55. Where today there are about 21,000
residents over the age of 55, in 25 years that number is expected to grow to over 60,000.
                        Population:
                        2005 Population                    180,803
                        2004 Population                    171,700
                        2003 Population                    164,900
                        2002 Population                    156,000
                        2001 Population                    148,000
                        2000 Population                    143,072
                        1998 Population                    129,294



                                                                                                      158
1996 Population                 127,200
1990 Population                 110,330
1980 Population                 62,134
1971 Population                 14,231

Parks & Landscape Areas:
Community Parks                 18
Neighborhood Parks              35
Athletic Infields               41 Fields
Sports Fields                   125 acres
Off-Street Bicycle Trails       40.5 miles
Open Space/Greenbelts           2202 acres
Streetscape                     670 acres
Trees                           55,500

Circulation System:             1,664 lane
                                miles

Education:
High School Graduates           95%
College Graduates               59%

Ethnicity: 2000 Census
White                           61%
Asian & Pacific Islander        29%
Hispanic                        7%
Black                           2%
Other                           1%
Income:
Median Family Income           $85,624
Housing:
Dwelling Units                 64,500
Median Value                   $712,113
(Single Family & Condominium)
Average Rent                   $1,660
FBI Crime Ranking: Cities over 100,000
Population
All Part 1 (serious) crimes    6th safest in
Part 1 violent crimes only     U.S.
                               1st safest in
                               U.S.
Registered Voters:
Registered as of February 2005 93,556
Employment:
Employment Base                 168,000




                                               159
                       Top Employers:
                       Albertsons - Sav-On              1,508
                       (Grocery/Pharmacy Retail)
                       Allergan (Pharmaceutical)        1,922
                       Irvine Unified School District   3,707
                       (Education)
                       New Century Mortgage             1,840
                       (Mortgage & Finance)
                       Option One Mortgage (Mortgage 1,801
                       & Finance)
                       Parker Hannifan (Aircraft Parts) 1,985
                       St. John Knits (Knit Garments) 2,616
                       University of California, Irvine 7,645
                       (Education)
                       Verizon Wireless                 1,695
                       (Communications)                 1,700
                       Washington Mutual Bank
                       (Financial)

http://www.cityofirvine.org/about/demographics.asp


The Irvine Unified School District (IUSD) consistently ranks among the finest educational
systems in the nation. Irvine schools offer innovative educational programs, open-style
classrooms, team-teaching, some schools with year-round terms, and excellent community
involvement. IUSD educates a diverse student population numbering over 24,000 (K-12), in 22
elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 4 comprehensive high schools, and 1 continuation high
school.

Irvine students consistently lead Orange County in SAT test scores, and more than 90 percent of
their high school graduates attend college. IUSD has nationally recognized schools; student
performance well-above state and national comparisons; and comprehensive programs in
academics, the arts, and athletics. Since becoming a unified district in 1972, Irvine's
neighborhood schools have been a clear reflection of the neighborhoods they serve. The
contributions of creative site-based management teams, talented and caring teachers, involved
parents, and supportive business and community leaders have, together, made a difference to a
district where student achievement is the priority, where values are an integral part of the
curriculum, and where a strategic plan for the future is in place.

The IUSD Board of Trustees meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month and
are cablecast on Cox Communications Channel 3.

The Tustin Unified School District (TUSD) serves residents who live in the western and northern
areas of Irvine. TUSD has a long history of excellence that continues to grow and be enriched by
the accomplishments of its students, teachers, staff and community. The District has 17




                                                                                            160
elementary schools, 5 middle schools, 2 comprehensive high schools, a continuation high school,
and alternative and adult education programs.

In the past decade, nine schools in TUSD have been recognized as either state or nationally
distinguished schools. Two elementary schools are National Exemplary Schools, and a middle
school and a high school are National Blue Ribbon Schools. Five other schools--an elementary,
two middle and two high schools--are California Distinguished Schools. High standards of
excellence in academics, visual and performing arts, and athletics are the hallmarks for

Tustin schools along with a major emphasis on educational technology in the classrooms. Tustin
schools consistently score well on state tests. TUSD students receive top scores among state
schools on annual standardized tests. Foothill and Tustin high schools have produced scores of
National Merit Scholars. Nearly 90 percent of all district graduates attend colleges and
universities.

The TUSD Board of Directors meetings are held on the second and fourth Mondays of each
month at 7 p.m. in the Board Room of the District Administration Center, 300 South C Street in
Tustin. The meetings are cablecast on Tuesdays at 6:30 p.m. on Comcast Community Channel 3
and Saturdays at 4 p.m. on Cox Communications Channel 31.

University of California at Irvine (UCI) is one of the nation's top academic institutions;
Concordia University is a four-year liberal arts institution.

Irvine Valley, Santiago Canyon and Orange Coast community colleges offer extensive full-time,
part-time and evening classes in a variety of disciplines.

http://www.cityofirvine.org/about/education___schools.asp


Irvine is more than one of America’s first and most successful master-planned communities. It’s
also a thriving business environment with a highly skilled and educated workforce—more than
60% of adult Irvine residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.

In addition to its public school system that ranks among the best in the nation, Irvine is also
home to one of the top research universities, UC Irvine. The school is closely aligned with the
local business community, where the entrepreneurial spirit is as pervasive as the offices of major
corporations here.

Source:

http://www.destinationirvine.com/economicDev/economicDev.aspx


S-L-2
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE #2003-81



                                                                                               161
Subject :

The City of Irvine Commits to Provide Affordable Housing
Contact : Leslie Roseberry, Community Development (949) 724-6441
Heather Morris, Public Information Office (949) 724-6252


IRVINE, CA – The City of Irvine offers affordable housing ranging from studio apartments to
large single-family homes. As part of an on-going commitment to provide affordable housing
for all economic segments of the community, Irvine has several programs available to assist
qualified renters and first-time homebuyers.

·    Rental Units – 35 rental developments throughout Irvine offer units at reduced rents for
lower income households.

·    Rent Assistance – Monthly rent assistance is available through the Orange County Housing
Authority (OCHA).

·     Temporary Housing – Families Forward, a local non-profit agency, provides temporary and
transitional housing and assistance for homeless families.

·     For-Sale Units – A mortgage credit certificate (MCC) program is available to assist
qualified first-time homebuyers.

The City of Irvine continues its efforts to provide affordable units by working with developers
and non-profit agencies. A brochure covering all facets of affordable housing in Irvine,
including locations and phone numbers for all developments with affordable units is available at
www.ci.irvine.ca.us or call (949) 724-6520.




Affordable Housing Accomplishments Fact Sheet

Within the last year, the Planning Commission has approved 422 new affordable rental units in
the City of Irvine.
Bridge Housing - 96 units
Laguna Canyon Apartments - 120 units
Ability First – 24 units
Essex – 20 units
Jamboree Housing– 162 units

As of June 1, 2003: the City of Irvine had 60,282 dwelling units, of which 43,559 (72 percent)
were constructed as for-sale units and 16,723 (28 percent) were constructed for rental purposes.




                                                                                                162
Of these 16,723 rental units, 3,391 (20 percent) are designated affordable to lower income
households.

March 25, 2003: City Council approved amendments to the City of Irvine’s Affordable Housing
Implementation Procedures outlined in Chapter 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The revisions
clarified existing procedures and made the requirement for 15 percent affordable housing
mandatory for every residential development.

March 11, 2003: City Council approved the Master Affordable Housing Program (MAHP) for
Planning Areas 1, 2, 5B, 6, 8A, and 9 (The Planning Areas), which are currently undeveloped.
The MAHP was required in conjunction with the approval of the Northern Sphere. The
maximum estimated number of dwelling units in the Planning Areas is 16,950, which would
generate the following number of affordable units:

Income I & II-           848 units
Income III-           848 units
Income IV-            848 units
Total:                2,544 units
The affordable unit requirements will be met through on-site and off-site construction of new
affordable units, preservation of existing affordable units in the City and payment of in-lieu fees
when other programs are infeasible.

http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=263


S-L-3
Homeless Facts

How many homeless are there in Orange County?

• According to the 2002 Needs Assessment there are over 22,000 homeless in Orange County.

• Families with children represent about 60-70% of the homeless population (approximately
15,000 parents and their children).

• One in three of the clients SFTH assists is a child under 15 years of age.

• There are an estimated 10,200 homeless children in Orange County.

How many homeless shelters are there in Orange County?

• There are approximately 41 temporary shelters providing 2,647 beds for the homeless on any
given night.

• Additional shelters and permanent affordable housing units are needed to assist the growing
number of homeless on Orange County.



                                                                                                163
How do we count the homeless?

• Each year, the County of Orange conducts a regional homeless needs assessment.

• Hundreds of homeless shelters and service providers are surveyed to determine the existing
inventory of beds and services for the homeless as well as the total number of homeless by sub-
population.

What are some statistics about my county?

• In 2003, SFTH's Emergency and Transitional Program provided 303,680 bed nights to 832
men, women and children.

SourceL
http://www.shelterforthehomeless.org/facts.htm

S-L-4
2008 Orange County Community Indicators

S-L-5
Orange County Healthcare Industry Report. Labor Market Research, conducted by the Orange County
Workforce Investment Board and the Orange County Healthcare Collaborative. April 2006.

S-L-6
Orange County CEDS Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Presented by
Orange County Workforce Investment Board, Annual Report 2007.


6. Research Area “Technology”



                                         TECHNOLOGY

NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
T-N-1
Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003
Description: This report examines the use of computers and the Internet by American children
enrolled in nursery school and students in kindergarten through grade 12. The report examines
the overall rate of use (that is, the percentage of individuals in the population who are users), the
ways in which students use the technologies, where the use occurs (home, school, and other
locations), and the relationships of these aspects of computer and Internet use to demographic
and socioeconomic characteristics such as students' age and race/ethnicity and their parents'
education and family income. This report confirms that patterns of computer and Internet use
seen in previous research are observed in more recent data. One of the more important findings
presented in the report is that schools appear to help narrow the disparities between different


                                                                                                  164
types of students in terms of computer use. Differences in the rates of computer use are smaller
at school than they are at home when considering such characteristics as race/ethnicity, family
income, and parental education.
Source: Computer and Internet Use by Students in 2003. DeBell, M., and Chapman, C. Statistical
Analysis Report. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2006065, September 2006.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006065



T-N-2
Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2003
Description: This report presents 10 years of data from 1994 to 2003 on Internet access in U.S.
public schools by school characteristics. It provides trend analysis on the percent of public
schools and instructional rooms with Internet access and on the ratio of students to instructional
computers with Internet access. The report contains data on the types of Internet connections,
support of computer hardware/software and websites, technologies and procedures used to
prevent student access to inappropriate material on the Internet, and the availability of hand-held
and laptop computers to students or teachers. It also provides information on school websites, the
availability of computers with Internet access outside of regular school hours, and teacher
professional development on how to integrate the use of the Internet into the curriculum.
Source: Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2003. Parsad, B. and
Jones, J. Statistical Analysis Report. National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2005015,
September 2006.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005015




T-N-3
Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century:
A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology

Executive Summary

Background

As the availability of computers and the Internet in schools and classrooms has grown (e.g.,
Williams, 2000), so has interest in the extent to which these technologies are being used and for
what purposes. Using the Fast Response Survey System (FRSS), NCES administered a short
survey of public school teachers in 1999 that included items on teachers’ use of computers and
the Internet. This report draws on that survey to describe teachers’ use of education technology
in their classrooms and schools, the availability of this technology in their classrooms and
schools, their training and preparation for their use, and the barriers to technology use they
encounter. Additional data sources (e.g., National Assessment of Educational Progress [NAEP],
Current Population Survey [CPS]) are used throughout the report to provide background




                                                                                               165
information on these topics.

Key Findings

Technology and Instruction
Over the past ten years, NCES has administered surveys focusing primarily on technology (e.g.,
computers, connections to the Internet) infrastructure in schools and classrooms. The 1999 FRSS
survey focused on availability of technology and the way in which these technologies are used.
According to this survey:

      Approximately half of the public school teachers who had computers or the Internet
       available in their schools used them for classroom instruction ( table 2.3). Teachers
       assigned students to use these technologies for word processing or creating spreadsheets
       most frequently (61 percent did this to some extent), followed by Internet research (51
       percent), practicing drills (50 percent), and solving problems and analyzing data (50
       percent—figure 2.6). Moreover, many teachers used computers or the Internet to conduct
       a number of preparatory and administrative tasks (e.g., creating instructional materials,
       gathering information for planning lessons) and communicative (e.g., communication
       with colleagues) tasks.
      Among those with technology available in their schools, teachers in low minority and low
       poverty schools were generally more likely than teachers in high minority and high
       poverty schools to use computers or the Internet for a wide range of activities, including
       gathering information at school, creating instructional materials at school,
       communicating with colleagues at school, and instructing students. For example, 57
       percent of teachers in schools with less than 6 percent minority enrollments used
       computers or the Internet for Internet research compared with 41 percent of teachers in
       schools with 50 percent or more minority enrollments (table 2.4).
      Among teachers with computers available at home, teachers with the fewest years of
       experience were more likely than teachers with the most years of experience to use
       computers or the Internet at home to gather information for planning lessons (76 percent
       compared with 63 percent) and creating instructional materials (91 percent compared
       with 82 percent — table 2.1). They were also generally more likely than more
       experienced teachers to use these technologies to access model lesson plans at school and
       at home.

Availability and Use of Technology
On a most basic level, teachers may be more likely to integrate computers and the Internet into
classroom instruction if they have access to adequate equipment and connections. The 1999
FRSS survey on teachers’ use of technology provides teachers’ perspectives on the availability
of computers and the Internet in their schools and classrooms and the general frequency with
which these technologies are used. Results of this survey indicate that:

      Nearly all public school teachers (99 percent) reported having computers available
       somewhere in their schools in 1999 (table A-3.9); 84 percent had computers available in
       their classrooms, and 95 percent had computers available elsewhere in the school (table
       3.1). Teachers were generally more likely to use computers and the Internet when located



                                                                                             166
       in their classrooms than elsewhere in the school (figure 4.3), while their students were
       more likely to use computers and the Internet outside the classroom than inside (figure
       4.8). Additionally, teachers and students with computers or Internet connections in their
       classrooms used these technologies elsewhere in the school more often than teachers and
       students without such tools in their classrooms (figures 4.5 & 4.10).
      Most public school teachers (84 percent) reported having at least one computer in their
       classrooms in 1999 (table 3.1). Thirty-six percent of teachers had one computer in their
       classrooms, 38 percent reported having two to five computers in their classrooms, and 10
       percent reported having more than five computers in their classrooms (table 3.2).
       Teachers and students with more computers or computers connected to the Internet in
       their classrooms generally used these technologies more often than teachers with fewer
       computers or Internet connections.
      In 1999, computer and Internet availability was not equally distributed among schools
       For example, teachers in schools with the lower minority enrollments (less than 6 percent
       or 6 to 20 percent) were more likely to have the Internet available in the classroom than
       teachers in schools with the highest minority enrollments (50 percent or more minority
       enrollments—69 percent and 71 percent compared with 51 percent—table 3.3).
       Moreover, teachers in schools with the lowest minority enrollments (less than 6 percent)
       were more likely to report having two to five computers connected to the Internet than
       teachers in schools with the highest minority enrollments (19 percent compared with 9
       percent— Table 3.4).
      Eighty-two percent of public school teachers reported having a computer available at
       home, 63 percent of public school teachers had the Internet available at home, and 27
       percent reported that their school had a network that they could use to access the Internet
       from home (table 3.6).

Teacher Preparation and Training
Teachers’ preparation and training to use education technology is a key factor to consider when
examining their use of computers and the Internet for instructional purposes. The 1999 FRSS
survey indicates that:

      In 1999, approximately one-third of teachers reported feeling well prepared or very well
       prepared to use computers and the Internet for classroom instruction (table A-5.5), with
       less experienced teachers indicating they felt better prepared to use technology than their
       more experienced colleagues (figure 5.1). For many instructional activities, teachers who
       reported feeling better prepared to use technology were generally more likely to use it
       than teachers who indicated that they felt unprepared (table 5.1).
      Teachers cited independent learning most frequently as preparing them for technology
       use (93 percent), followed by professional development activities (88 percent) and their
       colleagues (87 percent—figure 5.2). Whereas half of all teachers reported that college
       and graduate work prepared them to use technology, less experienced teachers were
       generally much more likely than their more experienced colleagues to indicate that this
       education prepared them to use computers and the Internet (figures 5.2 and 5.3).
      Most teachers indicated that professional development activities on a number of topics
       were available to them, including training on software applications, the use of the
       Internet, and the use of computers and basic computer training (ranging from 96 percent



                                                                                               167
       to 87 percent—figure 5.4). Among teachers reporting these activities available,
       participation was relatively high (ranging from 83 to 75 percent—figure 5.6), with more
       experienced teachers generally more likely to participate than less experienced teachers
       (table 5.3). Teachers indicated that follow-up and advanced training and use of other
       advanced telecommunications were available less frequently (67 percent and 54 percent,
       respectively), and approximately half of the teachers reporting that these two activities
       were available to them participated in them.
      Over a 3-year time period, most teachers (77 percent) participated in professional
       development activities in the use of computers or the Internet that lasted the equivalent of
       4 days or less (i.e., 32 or fewer hours—figure 5.7). Teachers who spent more time in
       professional development activities were generally more likely than teachers who spent
       less time in such activities to indicate they felt well prepared or very well prepared to use
       computers and the Internet for instruction (table 5.4).

Barriers to Teachers’ Use of Technology
Certain characteristics of classrooms and schools, such as equipment, time, technical assistance,
and leadership, may act as either barriers to or facilitators of technology use. The 1999 FRSS
survey indicates that:

      In 1999, the barriers to the use of computers and the Internet for instruction most
       frequently reported by public school teachers were not enough computers (78 percent),
       lack of release time for teachers to learn how to use computers or the Internet (82
       percent), and lack of time in schedule for students to use computers in class (80 percent—
       figure 6.1). Among the barriers most frequently reported by teachers to be ―great‖
       barriers to their use of computers or the Internet for instruction in 1999 were not enough
       computers (38 percent) and lack of release time for teachers to learn how to use
       computers or the Internet (37 percent).
      Teachers’ perceptions of barriers to technology use varied by a number of teacher and
       school characteristics. For example, secondary teachers, teachers in large schools, and
       teachers in city schools were more likely than elementary teachers, teachers in small
       schools, and teachers in rural schools, respectively, to report that not enough computers
       was a great barrier (table 6.1). Additionally, teachers in schools with more than 50
       percent minority enrollments were more likely to cite outdated, incompatible, or
       unreliable computers as a great barrier than teachers in schools with less than 6 percent
       minority enrollments (32 percent compared with 22 percent).
      Generally, teachers’ who perceived lacking computers and time for students to use
       computers as great barriers were less likely than those who did not perceive these
       conditions as barriers to assign students to use computers or the Internet for some
       instructional activities. For example, teachers who reported insufficient numbers of
       computers as a great barrierwere less likely than teachers reporting that this was not a
       barrier to assign students to use computers or the Internet to a ―large extent‖ for
       practicing drills (9 percent compared with 19 percent), word processing or creating
       spreadsheets (14 percent compared with 25 percent), and solving problems and analyzing
       data (6 percent compared with 13 percent— table 6.2).




                                                                                                168
Summary

The primary focus of this report is teachers’ use of computers or the Internet for instructional
purposes. Findings presented in this report indicate that about half of the teachers with computers
available in their schools used them for classroom instruction. Moreover, teachers’ use of
technology was related to their training and preparation and work environments. As described in
detail in the report, teachers were more likely to use these technologies when the technologies
were available to them, available in their classrooms as opposed to computer labs, and available
in greater numbers. Moreover, teachers who reported feeling better prepared were more likely to
use these technologies than their less prepared colleagues. (Teachers who spent more time in
professional development reported feeling better prepared than their colleagues.) Finally,
teachers who perceived that lacking computers and time for students to use computers as great
barriers were less likely than their colleagues to assign students to use computers or the Internet
for some instructional activities.
Source: Teachers’ Tools for the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology.
National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 2000102, September 2006.
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000102/index.asp



T-N-4


Question:
How many schools offer distance learning programs?

Response:
During the 12-month 2000–2001 academic year, 56 percent (2,320) of all 2-year and 4-year Title
IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions offered distance education courses for any level or
audience, (i.e., courses designed for all types of students, including elementary and secondary,
college, adult education, continuing and professional education, etc.). Twelve percent of all
institutions indicated that they planned to start offering distance education courses in the next 3
years; 31 percent did not offer distance education courses in 2000–2001 and did not plan to offer
these types of courses in the next 3 years. Public institutions were more likely to offer distance
education courses than were private institutions. In 2000–2001, 90 percent of public 2-year and
89 percent of public 4-year institutions offered distance education courses, compared with 16
percent of private 2-year and 40 percent of private 4-year institutions.

College-level, credit-granting distance education courses at either the undergraduate or
graduate/first-professional level were offered by 55 percent of all 2-year and 4-year institutions.
College-level, credit-granting distance education courses were offered at the undergraduate level
by 48 percent of all institutions, and at the graduate level by 22 percent of all institutions. Fifty-
two percent of institutions that had undergraduate programs offered credit-granting distance
education courses at the undergraduate level. Further, college-level, credit-granting distance
education courses were offered at the graduate/first-professional level by 52 percent of
institutions that had graduate/first-professional programs.

Related Tables and Figures: (Listed by Release Date)


                                                                                                  169
     1998, Number and percentage distribution of 2-year and 4-year postsecondary education
      institutions that offered distance education courses in 1997-98, by institutional
      characteristics
    1998, Percentage distribution of 2-year and 4-year postsecondary education institutions
      offering distance education courses in 1997-98
    1998, Percentage of instructional faculty and staff at degree-granting institutions who
      taught distance classes, by institutional type: Fall 1998
Other Resources: (Listed by Release Date)
    2003, Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001
    2002, A Profile of Participation in Distance Education: 1999-2000
    2002, Distance Education Instruction by Postsecondary Faculty and Staff: Fall 1998
    2002, Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Institutions: 1999–2000

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003).
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-
017), Executive Summary.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80


T-N-5
Student Participation in Distance Education
     In 2000–01, 56 percent of all postsecondary institutions offered distance education
        courses, up from 34 percent 3 years earlier. The number of course enrollments in distance
        education also increased, nearly doubling between 1997–98 and 2000–01; by 2000–01,
        about half of these enrollments were at public 2-year institutions.
    
Source: The Condition of Education 2004 Vol 6, Issues 1 & 2, Topic: Crosscutting Statistics.
National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_6/1_2/7_1.asp


T-N-6
Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions: 2000–2001

Executive Summary - Introduction
―This study, conducted through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS), was designed to provide current
national estimates on distance education at 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible, degree-granting
institutions. Distance education was defined for this study as education or training courses
delivered to remote (off-campus) sites via audio, video (live or prerecorded), or computer
technologies, including both synchronous (i.e., simultaneous) and asynchronous (i.e., not
simultaneous) instruction.

Key Findings

Institutions Offering Distance Education Courses



                                                                                              170
During the 12-month 2000–2001 academic year, 56 percent (2,320) of all 2-year and 4-year Title
IV-eligible, degree-granting institutions offered distance education courses for any level or
audience, (i.e., courses designed for all types of students, including elementary and secondary,
college, adult education, continuing and professional education, etc.). Twelve percent of all
institutions indicated that they planned to start offering distance education courses in the next 3
years; 31 percent did not offer distance education courses in 2000–2001 and did not plan to offer
these types of courses in the next 3 years.

Distance Education Enrollments and Course Offerings

Of the institutions that offered distance education courses in 2000–2001, about a quarter (27
percent) offered 10 or fewer courses, and 25 percent offered 11 to 30 courses. In addition, 15
percent of the institutions offered 31 to 50 courses, 19 percent offered 51 to 100 courses, and 15
percent offered more than 100 distance education courses.

Among all 2- and 4-year institutions in 2000–2001, 19 percent had degree or certificate programs
designed to be completed totally through distance education. Among the 56 percent of
institutions that offered distance education courses, 34 percent had degree or certificate programs
designed to be completed totally through distance education. Institutions were more likely to
offer distance education degree programs than certificate programs. Among the institutions that
offered distance education courses in 2000–2001, 30 percent offered degree programs and 16
percent offered certificate programs.

Distance Education Technologies

The Internet and two video technologies were most often used as primary modes of instructional
delivery for distance education courses by institutions during the 12-month 2000–2001 academic
year. Among institutions offering distance education courses, the majority (90 percent) reported
that they offered Internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction. In addition,
43 percent of institutions that offered distance education courses offered Internet courses using
synchronous computer-based instruction, 51 percent used two-way video with two-way audio,
and 41 percent used one-way prerecorded video as a primary mode of instructional delivery for
distance education courses. Further, of the institutions offering distance education courses, 29
percent used CD-ROM as a primary mode of instructional delivery and 19 percent used multi-
mode packages.

Of the institutions that offered distance education courses in 2000–2001 or that planned to offer
distance education courses in the next 3 years, 88 percent indicated plans to start using or
increase the number of Internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction as a
primary mode of instructional delivery for distance education courses. In addition, 62 percent of
institutions indicated that they planned to start using or increase the number of Internet courses
using synchronous computer-based instruction as a primary mode of instructional delivery, 40
percent planned to start using or increase the number of courses using two-way video with two-
way audio, 39 percent planned to start using or increase the number of courses using CD-ROMs,
and 31 percent planned to start using or increase the number of courses using multi-mode




                                                                                               171
packages. About a quarter (23 percent) planned to start using or increase the number of courses
using one-way prerecorded video.

Distance Education Program Goals

Of those institutions that offered distance education courses in 2000–2001, a majority reported
that increasing student access in various ways was a very important goal of their institution’s
distance education program. Sixty-nine percent of the institutions indicated that increasing
student access by making courses available at convenient locations was very important, and 67
percent reported that increasing student access by reducing time constraints for course-taking
was very important. In addition, 36 percent reported that making educational opportunities more
affordable for students, another aspect of student access, was a very important goal of their
distance education program.

On issues related to institutional enrollment and cost, 65 percent of institutions offering distance
education indicated that increasing the institution’s access to new audiences was very important,
60 percent reported that increasing institution enrollments was very important, and 15 percent
reported that reducing the institution’s per-student costs was very important. In addition,
improving the quality of course offerings was considered to be an important goal for 57 percent
of the institutions, and meeting the needs of local employers was rated as very important by 37
percent of the institutions.

In general, institutions reported that most of the goals they considered to be important for their
distance education programs were being met to a moderate or major extent. Increasing student
access by making courses available at convenient locations was reported to have been met to a
major extent by 37 percent of institutions that considered it an important goal, and increasing
student access by reducing time constraints for course-taking was reported to have been met to a
major extent by 32 percent of institutions that considered it an important goal.‖
Source: Postsecondary Education Quick Information System, National Center for Education
Statistics, July 1, 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/2003017/index.asp


T-N-7
Beyond School-Level Internet Access: Support for Instructional Use of Technology
―According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report Teachers’ Tools for
the 21st Century: A Report on Teachers’ Use of Technology, teachers in schools with high
poverty and schools with high minority enrollments were generally less likely to use computers
or the Internet for instruction during class time than teachers in schools with low poverty and
schools with low minority enrollment in 1999 (Smerdon et al. 2000). This gap existed despite the
fact that nearly all public schools had access to the Internet, regardless of poverty level (Williams
2000).

Two factors that may be related to teachers’ use of computers and the Internet are whether they
have access to the Internet in their classrooms and the level of support they receive for the use of
the Internet (Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson 2000)…Teachers in schools with high poverty
and schools with high minority enrollments were generally less likely to use computers or the



                                                                                                 172
Internet for instruction during class time than teachers in schools with low poverty and schools
with low minority enrollment in 1999 (Smerdon et al. 2000). This gap existed despite the fact
that nearly all public schools had access to the Internet, regardless of poverty level (Williams
2000). Two factors that may be related to teachers’ use of computers and the Internet are whether
they have access to the Internet in their classrooms and the level of support they receive for the
use of the Internet (Ronnkvist, Dexter, and Anderson 2000). ―
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NCES#2002029, April 18, 2002.

T-N-8
        distance education courses for public school students;
        technologies used for delivering distance education courses;
        entities delivering distance education courses;
        reasons for having distance education courses; and
        future expansion of distance education courses.
Distance education courses for public school students
The survey asked whether there were any public elementary or secondary school students in the
district enrolled in distance education courses in 2002–03 (12-month school year). Districts with
students enrolled in distance education courses were asked to indicate the number of schools
with at least one student enrolled in distance education courses and the number of enrollments in
distance education courses of students regularly enrolled in the district.
Prevalence of distance education courses in public school districts
     During the 2002–03 12-month school year, about one-third of public school districts (36
         percent) had students in the district enrolled in distance education courses. This
         represents an estimated 5,500 out of a total of 15,040 public school districts.
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students
         enrolled in distance education courses (50 vs. 32 and 37 percent, respectively). In
         addition, a greater proportion of districts located in rural areas than in suburban or urban
         areas indicated that they had students enrolled in distance education courses (46
         compared with 28 and 23 percent, respectively).
     A greater proportion of districts located in the Southeast and Central regions had students
         enrolled in distance education courses than did districts in the Northeast and West (45
         and 46 percent compared with 21 and 32 percent). The proportion of districts with
         students enrolled in distance education courses was lower in the Northeast than in other
         regions (21 vs. 32 to 46 percent).
     A smaller proportion of districts with the lowest poverty concentration had students
         enrolled in distance education courses than did districts with higher concentrations of
         poverty (33 compared with 42 percent for both districts with medium and high poverty
         concentration).
Prevalence of distance education courses in public schools
     An estimated 8,200 public schools had students enrolled in distance education courses
         during the 2002–03 12-month school year. This represents approximately 9 percent of all
         public schools nationwide.
     Although a greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had
         students enrolled in distance education courses, a greater proportion of schools in small
         districts had students enrolled in distance education courses than did schools in medium
         or large districts (15 vs. 6 percent for both medium and large districts). In other words,



                                                                                                 173
       when small districts do offer distance education, they are more likely to involve a greater
       proportion of their schools.
    A higher proportion of schools in rural districts than schools in either suburban or urban
       districts had students enrolled in distance education courses (15 compared to 7 and 5
       percent, respectively). In addition, a greater proportion of schools in the Central region
       had students enrolled in distance education courses than did schools in the Northeast (12
       vs. 5 percent).
    The percentage of schools with students enrolled in distance education courses varied
       substantially by the instructional level of the school. Overall, 38 percent of public high
       schools offered distance education courses, compared with 20 percent of combined or
       ungraded schools,1 4 percent of middle or junior high schools, and fewer than 1 percent
       of elementary schools.
    Among all public schools with students enrolled in distance education, 76 percent were
       high schools, 15 percent were combined or ungraded schools, 7 percent were middle or
       junior high schools, and 2 percent were elementary schools (figure 1).
Distance education enrollments by instructional level
    In 2002–03, there were an estimated 328,000 enrollments in distance education courses
       among students regularly enrolled in public school districts.2 If a student was enrolled in
       multiple courses, districts were instructed to count the student for each course in which
       he or she was enrolled. Thus, enrollments may include duplicated counts of students.
    Of the total enrollments in distance education courses, 68 percent were in high schools,
       29 percent were in combined or ungraded schools, 2 percent were in middle or junior
       high schools, and 1 percent3 were in elementary schools (figure 2).
Distance education enrollments by curriculum area
    Distance education enrollments in various curricular areas ranged from an estimated
       8,200 in general elementary school curriculum and 11,700 in computer science to 74,600
       in social studies/social sciences.
    About one-quarter (23 percent) of all enrollments in distance education courses of
       students regularly enrolled in the districts were in social studies/social sciences, 19
       percent were in English/language arts, 15 percent were in mathematics, 12 percent were
       in natural/physical science, 12 percent were in foreign languages, and 14 percent were in
       other unspecified curriculum areas. Enrollments in general elementary school curriculum
       and computer science accounted for the smallest proportions of distance education
       enrollments (3 and 4 percent, respectively).
    The proportion of students enrolled in foreign language distance education courses was
       greater for small districts compared to medium or large districts (19 vs. 11 and 6 percent,
       respectively). Furthermore, the proportion of students enrolled in foreign language
       distance education courses was greater for rural districts than for suburban or urban
       districts (22 vs. 10 and 5 percent, respectively).
Figure 1. Percentage distribution of public schools with students enrolled in distance
education courses, by instructional level: 2002-03




                                                                                               174
1
 Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both
elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated
8,210 schools with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002-03.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast
Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.
Figure 2. Percentage distribution of enrollments in distance education courses of students
regularly enrolled in the districts, by instructional level: 2002-03




                                                                                         175
1
  Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation for elementary schools is greater than 50
percent.
2
  Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both
elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated
327,670 enrollments in distance education courses in 2002-03.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast
Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.

Advanced placement or college-level courses offered through distance education
    Fifty percent of the districts with students enrolled in distance education courses had
      students enrolled in Advanced Placement or college-level courses offered through
      distance education in 2002–03. This represents an estimated 2,700 districts.
    There were an estimated 45,300 enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-level
      courses offered through distance education in 2002–03. This represents 14 percent of the
      total enrollments in distance education.
    The proportion of all distance education enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-
      level distance education courses was greater in small districts compared to medium or
      large districts (24 vs. 10 and 7 percent, respectively).
    The proportion of all distance education enrollments in Advanced Placement or college-
      level distance education courses was greater in rural districts compared to urban or
      suburban districts (27 vs. 4 and 11 percent, respectively). Additionally, suburban districts
      had a higher proportion (11 percent) of all distance education enrollments in Advanced
      Placement or college-level distance education courses than urban districts (4 percent).
Technologies used for delivering distance education courses



                                                                                                 176
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked about the types of
technologies used as primary modes of instructional delivery for any distance education courses
in which students in the district were enrolled. The technologies included internet courses using
synchronous (i.e., simultaneous or "real-time") computer-based instruction, internet courses
using asynchronous (i.e., not simultaneous) computer-based instruction, two-way interactive
video, one-way prerecorded video, and other technologies. Districts were also asked about online
distance education courses, including where students were accessing distance education courses,
and whether the district provided or paid for specific services (i.e., computer, internet service
provider, other) for students accessing online distance education courses from home.
Technologies used as primary modes of instructional delivery
     More districts reported two-way interactive video (55 percent) or internet courses using
        asynchronous computer-based instruction (47 percent) than internet courses using
        synchronous computer-based instruction (21 percent), one-way prerecorded video (16
        percent), or some other technology (4 percent) as a primary mode of delivery.4
     In small districts, two-way interactive video was the technology most often cited as a
        primary instructional delivery mode for distance education courses (60 percent vs. 5 to 42
        percent for all remaining technologies). However, in both medium and large districts,
        internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruction was the technology most
        often cited as a primary delivery mode (60 percent vs. 3 to 44 percent for all remaining
        technologies in medium districts; 72 percent vs. 6 to 33 percent for all remaining
        technologies in large districts).
     In both urban and suburban districts, internet courses using asynchronous computer-
        based instruction was the technology cited most often as a primary instructional delivery
        mode for distance education courses (69 percent vs. 3 to 38 percent for all remaining
        technologies in urban districts; 58 percent vs. 4 to 39 percent for all remaining
        technologies in suburban districts). However, in rural districts, two-way interactive video
        was the technology cited most often as a primary delivery mode (64 vs. 5 to 40 percent
        for all remaining technologies).
     When asked which technology was used to deliver the greatest number of distance
        education courses, 49 percent of districts selected two-way interactive video, more than
        any other technology. Thirty-five percent of districts selected internet courses using
        asynchronous computer-based instruction, 9 percent selected internet courses using
        synchronous computer-based instruction, 7 percent selected one-way prerecorded video,
        and 1 percent selected other technologies (figure 3).
Online distance education courses
     Fifty-nine percent of districts with students enrolled in distance education courses had
        students enrolled in online distance education courses (i.e., courses delivered over the
        Internet) in 2002–03.
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students
        enrolled in online distance education courses (80 vs. 71 and 53 percent, respectively).
        Medium districts also had a greater proportion of students enrolled in online distance
        education courses than small districts (71 vs. 53 percent). In addition, a smaller
        proportion of rural districts than suburban or urban districts had students enrolled in
        online distance education courses (51 vs. 71 and 74 percent, respectively).
     Of those districts with students enrolled in online distance education courses, 92 percent
        had students accessing online courses from school, 60 percent had students accessing



                                                                                               177
        online courses from home, and 8 percent had students accessing online courses from
        some other location.5
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students
        accessing online distance education courses from home (77 vs. 66 and 55 percent,
        respectively). Furthermore, a greater proportion of medium districts than small districts
        had students accessing online distance education courses from home (66 vs. 55 percent).
        In addition, the proportion of rural districts with students accessing online distance
        education courses from home was less than the proportion of suburban and urban districts
        with students accessing online courses from home (53 vs. 67 and 78 percent,
        respectively). No differences were detected in online access from home by poverty
        concentration.
     Among districts with students accessing online distance education courses from home, 24
        percent provided or paid for a computer for all students and 8 percent did so for some
        students. Additionally, 27 percent provided or paid for the internet service provider for all
        students and 7 percent did so for some students. Finally, 6 percent provided or paid for
        some other item (e.g., software programs, phone service for dial-up internet service) for
        all students and 2 percent did so for some students.
     A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts provided or paid for
        computers for all students (29 vs. 17 and 11 percent, respectively). Similarly, a greater
        proportion of small districts than medium or large districts provided or paid for an
        internet service provider for all students (32 vs. 20 and 15 percent, respectively). In
        addition, the proportion of rural districts that provided or paid for computers for all
        students was greater than the proportion of suburban or urban districts that provided or
        paid for computers for all students (33 vs. 16 and 9 percent, respectively).
Figure 3. Percentage distribution of districts reporting that various technologies were used
for the greatest number of distance education courses in which students in their district
were enrolled: 2002-03




                                                                                                 178
1
  Two-way interactive video refers to two-way video with two-way audio.
2
  Asynchronous is not simultaneous, whereas synchronous is defined as simultaneous or "real-
time" interaction.
3
  Other technologies mentioned included teleconferencing, CD-ROM, and other software
packages.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated
5,480 districts with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002-03. Detail may not
sum to totals because of rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast
Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.

Entities delivering distance education courses
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked which entities delivered
distance education courses to students regularly enrolled in their district. Entities included
     a cyber (i.e., online) charter school in the district;
     other schools in the district;
     their district (i.e., delivered centrally from the district);
     another local school district, or schools in another district, in their state;
     education service agencies within their state (e.g., Board of Cooperative Educational
        Services [BOCES], Council on Occupational Education [COE], Intermediate Units [IU]),
        not including the state education agency or local school districts;


                                                                                              179
       a state virtual school in their state (i.e., state-centralized K-12 courses available through
        internet- or web-based methods);
     a state virtual school in another state;
     districts or schools in other states (other than state virtual schools);
     a postsecondary institution;
     an independent vendor; and
     other entities.
Districts were also asked whether they delivered distance education courses to students who
were not regularly enrolled in their district (e.g., to students from other districts, private school
students, or homeschooled students).
Entities delivering courses
     Of those districts with students enrolled in distance education courses in 2002–03, about
        half (48 percent) had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by a
        postsecondary institution. Thirty-four percent of districts had students enrolled in
        distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or schools in other
        districts, within their state. Eighteen percent of districts had students enrolled in distance
        education courses delivered by education service agencies within their state, 18 percent
        by a state virtual school within their state, and 18 percent by an independent vendor.
        Sixteen percent of districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered
        centrally from their own district. Eight percent of districts had students enrolled in
        distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district (other than cyber
        charter schools). The proportion of school districts delivering distance education courses
        through various other entities ranged from 3 to 4 percent.
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts had students
        enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district (28 vs. 15
        and 5 percent, respectively). Medium districts also had a greater proportion of students
        enrolled in distance education courses delivered by other schools in the district than small
        districts (15 vs. 5 percent). Additionally, a greater proportion of urban districts than either
        suburban or rural districts had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered
        by other schools in the district (25 vs. 9 and 6 percent, respectively).
     A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students
        enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or
        schools in other districts, within their state (39 percent vs. 25 and 13 percent,
        respectively). Furthermore, a greater proportion of medium districts than large districts
        had students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school
        district, or schools in other districts, within their state (25 vs. 13 percent). Additionally,
        there were more rural districts than either suburban or urban districts that had students
        enrolled in distance education courses delivered by another local school district, or
        schools in other districts, within their state (40 percent vs. 25 and 20 percent,
        respectively).
     A smaller proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students
        enrolled in distance education courses delivered by a state virtual school in their state (15
        vs. 27 percent each, respectively). Additionally, a greater proportion of districts in the
        Southeast than in other regions had students enrolled in distance education courses
        delivered by a state virtual school in their state (43 vs. 6 to 17 percent).




                                                                                                   180
      A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts had students
       enrolled in distance education courses delivered by postsecondary institutions (54 vs. 30
       and 33 percent, respectively). In addition, there was a smaller proportion of urban
       districts than suburban or rural districts that had students enrolled in distance education
       courses delivered by postsecondary institutions (22 vs. 44 and 53 percent, respectively).
    There was a greater proportion of large districts than small districts with students enrolled
       in distance education courses delivered by independent vendors (28 vs. 16 percent).
       Compared to rural districts, both urban and suburban districts had greater proportions of
       students enrolled in distance education courses delivered by independent vendors (15 vs.
       29 and 23 percent, respectively).
Delivery of courses to students not regularly enrolled in the district
    During the 2002–03 12-month school year, about one-fifth (21 percent) of districts that
       offered distance education delivered courses to students who were not regularly enrolled
       in the district (e.g., to students from other districts, private school students, or
       homeschooled students).
    A smaller proportion of districts in the Southeast than in the Northeast or Central regions
       delivered distance education courses to students not regularly enrolled in the district (13
       vs. 29 and 22 percent, respectively).

Reasons for having distance education courses
Districts who reported offering distance education courses were asked how important various
reasons were for having distance education courses in the district in 2002–03. Reasons included
offering courses not otherwise available at the school, offering Advanced Placement or college-
level courses, addressing growing populations and limited space, reducing scheduling conflicts
for students, permitting students who failed a course to take it again, meeting the needs of
specific groups of students, and generating more district revenues.6
     The reason most frequently cited as very important for having distance education courses
        in the district was offering courses not otherwise available at the school (80 percent).
        Other reasons frequently cited as very important were meeting the needs of specific
        groups of students (59 percent) and offering Advanced Placement or college-level
        courses (50 percent). Reducing scheduling conflicts for students was mentioned as very
        important by 23 percent of districts. The remaining reasons were listed as very important
        by 4 to 17 percent of districts.
     Generating more district revenues as well as addressing growing populations and limited
        space were rated as not important more often than other reasons for having distance
        education courses (77 and 72 percent, respectively, vs. 9 to 64 percent).
     A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts rated offering
        courses not otherwise available at the school as a somewhat or very important reason for
        having distance education (93 vs. 86 and 82 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater
        proportion of rural districts than urban or suburban districts considered this to be a
        somewhat or very important reason for offering distance education courses (95 vs. 79 and
        86 percent, respectively).
     A greater proportion of high-poverty districts than medium- or low-poverty districts rated
        meeting the needs of specific groups of students as a somewhat or very important reason
        for having distance education (88 vs. 79 and 80 percent, respectively).




                                                                                              181
        A greater proportion of small districts than medium or large districts rated offering
         Advanced Placement or college-level courses as a somewhat or very important reason for
         having distance education (74 vs. 54 and 59 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater
         proportion of rural districts than urban or suburban districts cited this as a somewhat or
         very important reason for having distance education (76 vs. 49 and 59 percent,
         respectively).
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts cited reducing
         scheduling conflicts for students as a somewhat or very important reason for having
         distance education (70 vs. 52 and 56 percent, respectively).
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts reported permitting
         students who failed a course to take it again as a somewhat or very important reason for
         having distance education (50 vs. 34 and 30 percent, respectively). In addition, a greater
         proportion of urban districts than suburban or rural districts cited this reason as somewhat
         or very important for having distance education (47 vs. 33 and 31 percent, respectively).
     A greater proportion of large districts than medium or small districts rated addressing
         growing populations and limited space as a somewhat or very important reason for
         having distance education (44 vs. 33 and 21 percent, respectively). Furthermore, a
         smaller proportion of small districts than medium districts rated this as a somewhat or
         very important reason for having distance education (21 vs. 33 percent).
     A greater proportion of high-poverty districts than low-poverty districts cited generating
         more district revenues as a somewhat or very important reason for having distance
         education (21 vs. 11 percent).
Future expansion of distance education courses
Districts that reported offering distance education courses were asked whether they planned to
expand their distance education courses in the future. Those districts that planned to expand were
asked about the extent to which various factors, if any, might be keeping them from expanding
distance education courses. The factors included course development and/or purchasing costs;
limited technological infrastructure to support distance education; concerns about course quality;
restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies; concerns about receiving funding based on
student attendance for distance education courses; or some other reason.
     Seventy-two percent of districts with students enrolled in distance education courses
         planned to expand their distance education courses in the future. No differences were
         detected by district characteristics in plans to expand distance education courses.
     Costs were cited as a major factor more often than any other factor as preventing districts
         from expanding their distance education courses. Thirty-six percent of districts that were
         planning to expand their distance education courses selected course development and/or
         purchasing costs as a major factor preventing their expansion.
     Fifty-four percent of districts that were planning to expand their distance education
         courses said restrictive federal, state, or local laws or policies were not a factor
         preventing them from expanding. In addition, districts said the following were not factors
         preventing them from expanding distance education courses: limited technological
         infrastructure to support distance education (41 percent), concerns about receiving
         funding for distance education courses based on student attendance (40 percent), and
         concerns about course quality (30 percent).
     Among public school districts with plans to expand their distance education courses,
         approximately two-thirds (68 percent) said course development and/or purchasing costs



                                                                                                 182
       were a moderate or major factor keeping the district from expanding distance education
       courses, followed by concerns about course quality (37 percent); concerns about
       receiving funding for distance education courses based on attendance (36 percent);
       limited infrastructure to support distance education (33 percent); restrictive federal, state,
       or local laws or policies (17 percent); and some other reason (10 percent) (figure 4).
    A greater proportion of urban districts than rural districts cited restrictive federal, state, or
       local laws or policies as a major or moderate factor preventing expansion of distance
       education courses (30 vs. 15 percent). Additionally, a greater proportion of urban districts
       than suburban or rural districts cited receiving funding based on attendance for distance
       education courses as a major or moderate factor preventing them from expanding (54 vs.
       38 and 34 percent, respectively).
    A smaller proportion of districts in the Northeast than in other regions cited receiving
       funding based on attendance for distance education courses as a major or moderate factor
       preventing expansion (20 vs. 36 to 43 percent).
Figure 4. Percent of districts indicating that various factors were preventing them from
expanding distance education courses to a moderate or major extent: 2002-03




1
 Other responses mentioned included scheduling conflicts, staffing issues, and lack of need.
NOTE: Percentages are based on unrounded numbers. Percentages are based on the estimated
3,960 districts that indicated they were planning to expand distance education courses.




                                                                                                  183
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Fast
Response Survey System (FRSS), "Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and
Secondary School Students: 2002-03," FRSS 84, 2003.

References
Doherty, K.M. (2002, May 9). Students Speak Out. Education Week. Retrieved December 12,
2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35florida.h21.
Kennedy-Manzo, K. (2002, May 9). Sizing Up Online Content. Education Week. Retrieved
December 12, 2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35curric.h21.
Lewis, L., Alexander, D., and Farris, E. (1997). Distance Education in Higher Education
Institutions (NCES 98-062). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics.
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., and Levin, D. (1999). Distance Education at Postsecondary
Education Institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000–013). U.S. Department of Education. Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Snyder, T.D., and Hoffman, C.M. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002 (NCES 2003-
060). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Trotter, A. (2002, May 9). E-Learning Goes to School. Education Week. Retrieved December 12,
2002, from http://counts.edweek.org/sreports/tc02/article.cfm?slug=35elearn.h21.
Waits, T., and Lewis, L. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary
Institutions: 2000-2001 (NCES 2003-017). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wildavsky, B. (2001, October 15). Want More From High School? usnews.com. Retrieved
October 21, 2002, from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/011015/archive_011072.htm.


Footnotes
1
  Combined or ungraded schools are those in which the grades offered in the school span both
elementary and secondary grades or that are not divided into grade levels.
2
  To put this number into context, NCES reported 47,222,778 students enrolled in public
elementary and secondary schools in fall 2000. It is important to note that distance education
enrollments collected in the FRSS survey may include duplicated counts of students (i.e., the
number of students enrolled in distance education courses could be smaller than the estimated
328,000 enrollments in distance education courses), while the NCES estimate of 47,222,778
students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools is an unduplicated count (Snyder
and Hoffman 2003, p. 51).
3
  Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation for elementary schools is greater than 50
percent.
4
  Percentages sum to more than 100 because some districts used different types of technology as
primary modes of instructional delivery for different distance education courses.
5
  Percentages sum to more than 100 because students in districts could access online courses from
more than one location.




                                                                                                 184
6
 Although respondents were able to specify some other reason for having distance education, the
only available options for this response were somewhat important and very important. Therefore,
these "other" responses are not discussed further.

Source: Distance Education Courses for Public Elementary and Secondary School Students:
2002–03. By: J. Carl Setzer and Laurie Lewis. Education Statistics Quarterly, Vol 7, Issues 1 &
2, Topic: Elementary and Secondary Education.

T-N-9

08.11.05: Statistics Summary from: "Text Messages Sent by
Cellphone Finally Catch On in U.S."
BY LI YUAN STAFF REPORTER OF THE WALL STREET JOURNAL


* 55 million cellphone users in the U.S.
* 4.7 billion text messages sent in the U.S. in December 2004
* 2.1 billion text messages sent in U.S. in December 2003
* 253 million text messages sent in U.S. in December 2001
* 203 text messages sent per U.S. user on average or 37 billion in total
(according to CTIA)


* Revenue from text messaging projected to grow to $4.3 billion in 2006
from $2.5 billion in 2004
* 71% of European mobile phone users send text messages - more than
twice the U.S. percentage.
(according to Forrester Research, Inc.)


* 651 text messages sent per Chinese user on average or 218 billion in total
(according to Chinese information industry ministry)


* Verizon Wireless reports that its users sent more than 10 billion messages
in 2004 - more than 3 times the number in 2003


* 33% of Americans between 25-34 text message regularly - up from 24%
in 2004



                                                                                             185
* 25% texted from ages 25-44 - remaining at same rate
* 62% texted from ages 18-24 - up grom 52%
(From a 2005 Yankee Group survey of 5200 adults)

* American Idol processed 41.5 million text messages in 2005 season. Up 3x
from the previous season.

Source: WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB112372600885810565,00.html




STATE TECHNOLOGY
T-S-1
California Community Colleges Technology II Strategic Plan 2000-2005
Executive Summary
The California Community Colleges face compelling challenges in serving the students of today:
● the explosive use of the Internet as a required occupational and citizenship skill;
● the Digital Divide;
● the necessity for integration of the new technology into teaching and learning;
● the impact of Tidal Wave II on demand for college access; and;
● ensuring that technology is accessible to persons with disabilities.

The cost estimate for this plan is based upon a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model, which
includes not only hardware and software but also the vital related components of support staffing
and staff development. Community colleges currently are investing over $73 million per year in
telecommunications and technology, or about $73 per FTES, but it is not enough to meet the
goals identified above. The colleges require a substantial infusion of funds in order to meet the
growing technological needs of students, faculty and staff. This plan would provide additional
resources into the system’s base each year for five years. The funding of this plan would involve
a collaborative effort of two major stakeholders: the State and the private sector.

What more is needed to effectively meet the technology challenges? In spite of the actions noted
above, there are serious gaps in the colleges’ ability to meet today’s technology needs. The
Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges sought
the assistance of the well-respected Gartner Group in assessing the current state of the
 system. The Gartner Group’s thorough and detailed analysis includes details on the
methodology for their investigation.

These gaps identified include these:
● There are significant shortages in the number of computers at many colleges;
● The majority of college PCs are older than three years;
● Few colleges are able to upgrade their computers on a timely or regular basis, which


                                                                                             186
  limits the software to which students have access;
● Students must wait in long lines to access open laboratories for doing homework or
  research on the Internet;
● The level of staff support for assisting students and faculty in using the new technology
  is sorely limited;
● Training for faculty and staff does not allow an optimal use of technology.

This strategic plan provides a baseline level of technology for students, faculty and staff,
including these sorts of features to support the goals of student access and success:
● A ratio of 1 computer for every 20 students;
● Computers for all full-time faculty, adequate access for all part-time faculty, and computers for
appropriate administrative and support staff;
● A replacement rate of once every three years for computer replacement;
● Access for students, faculty and staff to printers, the local area network, office and virus
protection software, and other key information resources, e-mail, and the Internet;
● Disabled accessible computers at 10 percent of all workstations;
● Support staffing for both technical backup and direct support for students and faculty;
● Ongoing training for faculty and staff.‖

Source: California Community Colleges Technology II Strategic Plan 2000-2005.


LOCAL TECHNOLOGY

T-L-1-1

IVC Technology Data from 2001-2006 (Personal communication with Tran Hong on
09/25/2006.

1.   # of on-campus computers:
     2001: 900;
     2006: 1,200
2.   Average age of computers and servers at time of replacement
     2001: 5 years;
     2006: 3 years
3.    annual costs for technology replacement (2001: $100,000 p.a.; 2006: $1,000,000 p.a.) as a
     percentage of technology inventory
     2001: 1/3;
     2006: 1/3
4.   technology equipment reserve amounts
     4.1. .for committed replacements
     2001: no reserve;
     2006: part of the $1,000,000; includes replacements as well as new projects such as
     wireless, phones, network equipment, as well as printers, etc.
     4.2. for contingency funding
     2001: none;



                                                                                               187
       2006: part of the $1,000,000
5.     expenditures for new technology projects
       2001: $100,000;
       2006: $1,000,000
6. ratio computers in classrooms and labs (2001: 500; 2006: 700) /instructional computer lab
coordinators (2001: 1 manager, 2 FT instructional lab technicians, 10 PT instructors, 10 PT
tutors= 13 FT staff (67 open hours per week); 2006: 1 manager, 2 FT instructional lab
technicians, 10 PT instructors, 10 PT tutors= 13 FT staff (45 open hours per week))
       2001: 13/900;
       2006: 13/1,200
7. ratio of network administrators (2001: 0; 2006: 1) to network users and servers (2001: ~ 450
computers for faculty/staff and 400 student computers; 2006: ~ 500 computers for faculty/staff
and 500 student computers; 50 servers that support the campus)
       2001: 0/850;
       2006: 1/1,000
 8. Percentage utilization of internet bandwidth capacity
       2001: connected via District: 75-90%;
       2006: 5-25%
 9. # of user support and training staff
       2001: 5;
       2006: 6

T-L-2-1

IVC Technology Chapter in IVC’s 2006/2007 Institutional Effectiveness Report. Prepared by
Andreea Serban.


T-L-3-1

Computer Cluster Collaborative Labor Market Research Report. Conducted for the Orange

County Workforce Investment Board. December 2007.




7. Research Area “Institutional Effectiveness”

INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVNESS

STATE INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS



                                                                                             188
IE-S-1-1
Information Item 7: California Postsecondary Education Commission: Transfer Patterns

IE-S-2-1
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges: Draft Report. A report to the legislature,
pursuant to AB 1417. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, October 2006.

IE-S-3-1
Frequently Asked Questions about AB1417/Accountability Reporting for the Community
Colleges (ARCC) (Updated October 12, 2006)


IE-S-4-1
System Performance on Partnership for Excellence Indicators. District and College Data for
2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, February
2006.

IE-S-5-1
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges: Draft Report. A report to the legislature,
pursuant to AB 1417. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, October 2007.

IE-S-6-1
Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges. The Center
for Student Success and the Research and Planning Group, March 2007.
IE-S-7-1
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges: Draft Report. A report to the legislature,
pursuant to AB 1417. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, February 2008.
IE-S-8-1
Strategic Plan Update: The first two years: priorities and progress. Volume 4, Issue 1 (February
2008). System Office California Community Colleges.
IE-S-9-1
Resource Guide Student Success-Basic Skills Initiative. Communications Outreach Program.
California Community Colleges.
IE-S-10-1
Student Success-Basic Skills Initiative Communications Plan. Chancellor’s Office, California
Community Colleges (2008).
IE-S-11-1
The State of the California Community College System, Diane Woodruff, Interim Chancellor,
2007.




                                                                                               189
LOCAL INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
IE-L-1-1
IVC Data on Institutional Effectiveness, prepared by Sibylle Georgianna.


IE-L-2-1
IVC Data on Distance Education, prepared by Sibylle Georgianna.


IE-L-3-1
IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2006 for Irvine Valley College. Source: Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System, postsecondary education data collection program for the National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES).

IE-L-4-1
Results of IVC Graduate Follow Up Surveys conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2006, prepared by
Sibylle Georgianna.

IE-L-5-1
Results of 2006 IVC Student Satisfaction Survey, prepared by Sibylle Georgianna.

IE-L-6-1
IVC Data on Institutional Effectiveness, prepared by Andreea Serban, Ph.D. (2007)

IE-L-7-1
Orange County Workforce: State of the County 2007. Released by the Orange County
Workforce Investment Board and the Orange County Business Council, 2007.

IE-L-8-1
Irvine Valley College 2006-2012 Strategic Plan: Year One: 2007-2008.

IE-L-9-1
Basic Skills Initiative Action Plans for IVC, spring 2008.

IE-L-10-1
Success rates at IVC for probationary students by supportive service used, fall 1998-spring 2007.

IE-L-11-1
Basic Skills Proposal English Norming Sessions, spring 2008.

IE-L-12-1
Basic Skills Proposal English Departmental Diagnostic Sessions, spring 2008.

IE-L-13-1
Basic Skills Proposal Math Modules, spring 2008.




                                                                                                    190
IE-L-14-1
Basic Skills Proposal Math Tutoring Center, spring 2008.

IE-L-15-1
Basic Skills Proposal ESL Center, spring 2008.

IE-L-16-1
Irvine Valley College 2006-2012 Strategic Plan: Year Two: 2008-2009.

IE-L-17-1
PARS South Orange County Community College District Retirement Study (2007).

IE-L-18-1
Brief Update on Transfer Rates for Irvine Valley College and Saddleback College. Prepared by
Andreea Serban, Ph.D. (2008)

IE-L-19-1
Report of the Validation Studies Required for the Use of a State-Approved Objective
Assessment Test [College Test for English Placement (CTEP)]. Irvine Valley College. Spring
2007.

IE-L-20-1
Irvine Valley College: Equation to Address Calculation of Full-time Faculty Hiring. Jeff
Kaufmann (2008).

IE-L-21-1
Orange County 2008 Community Indicators. Orange County Community Indicators Project
(2008).




                                                                                           191
Appendix B: IVC’s Planning Assumptions

Planning Assumptions by Research Area and Focus Group:


1. Research Area “Demographics”

Focus Group Institutional Effectiveness:

1 - IVC's Service Area (as designated in the 5-Year Plan document completed in 2006),
will see a steady rise in population, but will continue a trend of decreasing percentages
of school- and college-aged students. (D-N-1-1, E-C-S-4, ED-L-2, S-L-1; also, Lennar
Corp. plans for housing on the former airbase) Applicable to IVC Goal #1

2 - IVC will require additional Basic Skills curriculum as an answer to the increasing
needs for remediation among college students and scrutiny from the State Chancellor's
Office on the number and percentage of successful degree recipients and transfers to 4-
year colleges. (D-S-1-1, D-L-2-1, ED-N-8, ED-S-1; also November, 2006 study by the
Public Policy Institute of California) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 3, and 7

3 - IVC will have difficulty attracting traditional students (18-25 years old, full-time) from
within the Service Area, as housing prices limit access to the Service Area for these
students and for parents with school and college-aged students. This is exacerbated by
the level of achievement in local K-12 students, and their willingness and ability to
access 4-year institutions immediately upon graduating from high school. (D-L-6-1, S-L-
1, S-L-2, ED-N-3) Applicable to IVC Goals #2 and 7


4 -The majority of students live and/or work within the 5-mile radius of the campus
known as the ―effective service area‖. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future.
[IE-L-5-48-60]


5 - There will be a steady increase in the Asian, Hispanic and Persian populations at
IVC.(D-N-1-2; D-L-8-11; D-N-1-14,15; D-L-8-10; L.A. Times 10-29-06; SOCCCD
Almanac)




2. Research Area “Economy and Employment”



                                                                                          192
1 - As Career, Technical and Certificate program students/graduates play a larger role
in local employers' use of manpower, and earning potential increases in-line with
demand in these areas, IVC will require a greater commitment of resources to these
programs to provide for community demand. (EC-N-1-3, EC-N-1-16, EC-N-1-19, EC-N-
1-20, EC-N-3, ED-N-8) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9

2 - As demand rises for Career, Technical and Certificate program students/graduates,
IVC must be prepared to meet the marketplace's demand for new workforce programs,
and do so more rapidly within the context of the curriculum process. (EC-N-1-3, EC-N-
1-16, EC-N-1-19, EC-N-1-20, EC-N-3, ED-N-8) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, and 9


3 - Orange County has emerging industry clusters in biotechnology, pharmaceutical,
and biomedical employment which increases the demand for transfer students in these
related sciences. [CSUF Economic Forecast, Oct 2006 = X-L-1-35]

4 - Orange County employment is predicted to grow approximately 1% for 2007 and
2008. Certain employment sectors such as Professional and Business Services,
Education, and Health Care are predicted to grow faster than other sectors. Demand for
educational offerings in these sectors will likely grow at a rate comparable with the
employment growth rate in the respective employment sector. [EC-L-10-15]

5 - The Southern California Leading Economic Indicator declined -0.09% in the third
quarter of 2006 compared to the second quarter of 2006 which is the third time the
indicator has decreased in the last four quarters and suggests a decrease in economic
activity in the southern California region in the next three to six months. [EC-L-10-15]


6 - IVC will see a significant increase in low-income, and educationally and
environmentally disadvantaged students with or without limited English skills. (D-N-1-19;
EC-N-1-12; EC-N-1-11; EC-N-1-20; P-N-5-1; City of Irvine document on low-income
housing)


7 - Occupations with the greatest projected growth in Orange County and California are
business, health care, computer software, education, construction, engineering, and
energy. (EC-L-3-20,21; OC Workforce 2006:OC 2025 Wake-Up Call; San Fernando
Valley Business Journal, 5-22-06; The Modesto Bee, 6-16-06; PR Newswire, 5-9-06;
Sacramento Bee, 9-21-06)


3. Research Area “Educational Trends”




                                                                                     193
1 - Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) and quantifiable measures of success for
programs and students will become increasingly vital. Demonstration of this success
will be a requirement for the State and will be a valuable marketing and recruiting tool
for the College. (ED-N-1; also ARCC/AB1417 and AACC standards) Applicable to IVC
Goals #1, 2, 5, 7 and 8

2 - Core curriculum, requisite for degrees and transfer, and availability of sections in
these disciplines, will be a measuring stick for students in choosing their college. A
sacrifice or marginalization of 'breadth' will compromise the College's ability to attract
the traditional student. This is also critical in recruiting the "Swirler" or "Bounce-Back",
as recruiting of those students must begin before enrollment in their initial 4-year
institution. (ED-N-1) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9


3 - There will be an increased demand for alternative course delivery methods such as
distance education. Distance education enrollment at IVC has increased 20% between
the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 academic years. [―A Test of Leadership 2006‖= ED-N-
11-21, IE-L-2-1]

4 - Enhanced technology and an increased number of transfer agreements have made
it easier for students to build a UC- or CSU- transferable transcript using courses from
several education providers. This trend, called by some ―a cafeteria approach to
education‖, will continue for the foreseeable future. [ED-N-11-13]

5 - Student participation rates are affected by factors such as the availability of certain
classes, personal choices, and the perceived value of the education. [Analysis of the
2006-07 Budget Bill Legislative Analyst's Office February 2006 = ED-S-5-5]


6 - Because of work obligations and geographic limitations, students will demand
opportunities for flexible and convenient schedules and course offerings. (OC Workforce
2006: OC 2025 Wake-Up Call; ED-N-1-9)

7 - It is expected that students will take longer to complete their certificates and degrees
and will incur a larger debt burden. (ED-N-1-14; ED-N-1-1; ED-N-1-31)



4. Research Area “Public Policies”


1 - Funding issues will improve with the new state allocation model, but IVC will
continue a vigilant budgeting process until enrollment levels rise to meet state-high
levels in payroll. (ED-S-1) Applicable to IVC Goals #4, 5, 6, and 9




                                                                                        194
2 - Partnerships among IVC, K-12, and 4-year institutions seeking to work within this
service area, will be a necessity in order to grow enrollments. Reasons include
competition in the marketplace is rapidly rising, the need for remediation with concepts
such as Early College may be lessened, and partnerships can include a revenue
component with the 4-year schools. (P-N-2-1, T-N-7; also, LaVerne College and
California University of Pennsylvania proposals with the Office of Instruction) Applicable
to IVC Goals #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9

3 - Access to Financial Aid and alternative funding sources for students will remain a
critical component despite a lower tuition. Community colleges continue to enroll the
highest percentage of students and families from the low-end of the socio-economic
spectrum, and housing remains a disproportional cost in the Service Area. (P-N-6-1, D-
L-6-1, S-L-1, S-L-2, ED-N-3) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 5, 6, and 9


4 - For the foreseeable future, the college will operate in a highly restrained fiscal
environment. Senate Bill 361 will have a positive impact on the funding level, however it
will not eliminate the need for fiscal restraint. [P-S-5,P-S-7-4,5,6,7]

5 - Current regulations and policies significantly hinder the college’s ability to adapt to
the changing marketplace. [ED-N-11-14,31-32]

Focus Group Student Success and Access:

6 - Fiscal restraints will continue to impact the allocation of resources to the college. (P-
N-6-1,7,8; P-S-6; P-S-5; P-L-1)




5. Research Area “Social Trends”


1 – A growing number of older adults with higher amounts of discretionary income will
continue to enroll in personal development and enrichment courses. As such, IVC will
need to develop courses relevant to this aging population’s needs and interests. Art,
History, Music, Health Education, Adaptive Physical Education and social activities
classes will be the futures high demand classes. Demonstration of our ability to quickly
adapt and offer these courses will become a valuable recruiting tool for the college.(S-
N-1-13, 4, 8, 9) Applicable to IVC Goals#1, 2, 3, 7 and 8.

2 - The general population will continue to require opportunities such as ―lifelong
learning‖ or ―continuing education‖ programs for updating skills outside of traditional
degree programs.[ED-N-11-21]




                                                                                         195
3 - IVC will see an increase of a population seeking personal development and lifelong
learning. (S-N-1-1-1,3,4,8.9-1; S-L-1; P-N-2-1)

4 - Social trends suggest that more students are seeking community resources to
update and advance their job skills. (Welfare and Poverty Trends in California, Public
Policy Institute of Calif, p. 3,5; S-N-2-1; s-N-1-1; P-N-4-1)




6. Research Area “Technology”


1 - As Distance Education continues to be highly prized by multiple student categories,
and faculty members embrace the technology of Blackboard and other delivery
systems, the college must provide student access and technology to match.
Scheduling, budget, and personnel attendants for this access will be required. (IE-L-2-
1, T-N-5, T-N-6, T-N-7, T-S-1, T-L-1) Applicable to IVC Goals #1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9

2 - Increasing uses for existing technology will become paramount in reducing
spending. Examples include on-line syllabi and e-handouts replacing copying costs,
and increases in on-line registration equating to education in the number or type of
printed schedules. (T-N-5, T- N-6) Applicable to IVC Goals #2, 6 and 9

Focus Group Student Success and Access:

3 - The use of technology by IVC students, faculty and staff will continue to increase. (T-
N-3; T-S-1; T-L-1-1)

4 - Distance learning classes will continue to increase and be requested by IVC
students. (T-N-6; T-S-1; T-L-1-1)


7. Planning Assumptions of 2008/2009 Strategic Planning Cycle

1 - The improvement of the success rates in Basic Skills Mathematics courses and all
other mathematics courses offered at the College will be of high priority. Annual
successful course completion rates in basic skills math courses reflect the room and
need for improvement. [IE-L-6-1]

2 - Learning a foreign language is a complex process and students often need
additional curricular support to be successful. Student enrollment in the 180 courses
will help increase success rates. Furthermore there is a high demand in the global
marketplace for people with cross-cultural sensitivity and understanding. The World



                                                                                       196
Languages Resource Center will help students to maximize their foreign language
experience. [ED-N-11]

3 - There seems to be a significant problem with the placement of students into WR 201
through the existing assessment test. Preliminary data suggests that 34 of the 51
students determined to be better served in ESL classes were placed into WR 201
through assessment. This number should decrease as the college begins using the
College Test of English Placement (CTEP) for writing assessment and placement;
however, current data suggests that a secondary screening procedure of direct
assessment of skills (such as the departmental diagnostic) is necessary to ensure that
students placed into writing classes are able to successfully complete their courses. [IE-
L-6-1; IE-L-9]




                                                                                      197
Appendix C: Strategic Planning Outcome Measures

                                    IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE




            2006-2012 Strategic
                 Planning
Measures of 2008/2009 Objectives and Strategies
                                 Prepared by the Research Analyst
                                           08/26/2008




The document contains a summary of the measures of the 2008/2009 Strategic Planning Objectives and
Strategies.


                                                                                               198
                    OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES

OBJECTIVE I: Increase alternative educational delivery systems. (Linked to IVC Goals:
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9; and District Goals 1, 11)

      Rationale: IVC will increase enrollment through online classes.

      Strategy a: Establish a faculty technical skills certification for instructors. (Lead
      Person: Bob Urell)

      Strategy b: Identify and allocate funds to develop an online distance education
      orientation template. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Bob Urell)

      Outcome: Expanded online course offerings, including full degrees; increased
      and better organized faculty support for online course development.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         2006/2007 and 2007/2008 Statewide Distance Education Reports (Vice
           President of Instruction)
         ACCJC’s Annual Reports on Distance Education (Vice President of
           Instruction)
         Chancellor’s Action Plan on Distance Education (Vice President of
           Instruction)




                                                                                       199
                 A              B              C                   D
 4   Academic Year Desc   Term Desc                        Emeritus Institute
 5   1999-2000            Spring 2000   Enrollment Count                 1771
 6                                      Section Count                       49
 7                        Summer 2000   Enrollment Count                   861
 8                                      Section Count                       22
 9   2000-2001            Fall 2000     Enrollment Count                 1595
10                                      Section Count                       50
11                        Spring 2001   Enrollment Count                 1590
12                                      Section Count                       47
13                        Summer 2001   Enrollment Count                   723
14                                      Section Count                       18
15   2001-2002            Fall 2001     Enrollment Count                 1933
16                                      Section Count                       52
17                        Spring 2002   Enrollment Count                 2157
18                                      Section Count                       59
19                        Summer 2002   Enrollment Count                 1553
20                                      Section Count                       36
21   2002-2003            Fall 2002     Enrollment Count                 2605
22                                      Section Count                       70
23                        Spring 2003   Enrollment Count                 3037
24                                      Section Count                       76
25                        Summer 2003   Enrollment Count                 1549
26                                      Section Count                       29
27   2003-2004            Fall 2003     Enrollment Count                 3126
28                                      Section Count                       71
29                        Spring 2004   Enrollment Count                 3520
30                                      Section Count                       84
31                        Summer 2004   Enrollment Count                 2373
32                                      Section Count                       48
33   2004-2005            Fall 2004     Enrollment Count                 3819
34                                      Section Count                       92
35                        Spring 2005   Enrollment Count                 4404
36                                      Section Count                      107
37                        Summer 2005   Enrollment Count                 2809
38                                      Section Count                       67
39   2005-2006            Fall 2005     Enrollment Count                 4561
40                                      Section Count                      120
41                        Spring 2006   Enrollment Count                 4504
42                                      Section Count                       99
43                        Summer 2006   Enrollment Count                 3320
44                                      Section Count                       69
45   2006-2007            Fall 2006     Enrollment Count                 5036
46                                      Section Count                      107
47                        Spring 2007   Enrollment Count                 5056
48                                      Section Count                      114
49                        Summer 2007   Enrollment Count                 3531
50                                      Section Count                       78
51   2007-2008            Fall 2007     Enrollment Count                 5524
52                                      Section Count                      136
53                        Spring 2008   Enrollment Count                 4986
54                                      Section Count                      109
55                        Summer 2008   Enrollment Count                 3777
56                                      Section Count                       80




                                                                                 200
OBJECTIVE II: Develop programs to meet student and community interests. (Linked to
IVC Goals: 1, 2, 3, 7; and District Goals 1, 9)

      Rationale: This objective will position IVC to develop programs to best serve the
      surrounding community.

      Strategy a: Conduct a thorough assessment of our certificate programs to (1)
      establish whether they meet industry standards predicated upon State
      requirements, (2) assess whether the certificates are viable, and (3) determine
      whether the courses within the certificates are offered in a timely manner. (Lead
      Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy b: Increase short-term courses and weekend course offerings. (Lead
      Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy c: Develop and implement a master calendar for the Performing Arts
      Center for fine arts, including dance, music, theater, and visual arts. (Lead
      Person: Karl Stenske)

      Outcomes: Programs, courses and activities are aligned with the needs of the
      community.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures (Provider in parentheses):
         The research office provided data from the Orange County Business
           Council for the Office of Career Technical Education and Workforce
           Development and for the Emeritus Institute (College Researcher).
         Based on the research data, the Dean of Career Technical Education and
           Workforce Development proposed discussion on the following four new
           prospecti: (a) a Business & Professional Institute for 2008-2009; (b) a
           Physical Therapy Assistant Program; (c) a Paralegal Studies Certificate
           Program; and (d) a Health Information Technology Program. All prospecti
           will be evaluated within the new Program Development and Approval
           Policy (see http://www.ivc.edu/asenate/pages/docs.aspx) (Dean of Career
           Technical Education and Workforce Development).
         The Director of the Emeritus Institute reviewed and revised the Emeritus
           Institute’s 68 piece of curriculum and embedded the research data in the
           revised curriculum as well as three new pieces of curriculum (see
           Objective VI) (Emeritus Institute Director).




                                                                                   201
OBJECTIVE III: Increase course completion rates for credit basic skills courses, credit
vocational courses, and college level courses. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3; and District
Goals 1, 2)

      Rationale: There will be a steady increase in the Asian, Hispanic and Persian
      populations at IVC; IVC will see a significant increase in educationally and
      environmentally disadvantaged students with or without limited English skills. It is
      expected that students will take longer to complete their certificates and degrees
      and will incur a larger debt burden. Students who stay in classes and programs
      are more successful in obtaining degrees and certificates and in moving to the
      next level of their education.

      Strategy a: Establish the Scheduling And Reporting System (SARS) early alert
      program. (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor of Technologies and Learning
      Services, Tran Hong)

      Strategy b: Develop a Degree Audit program. (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor
      of Technologies and Learning Services, Tran Hong)

      Strategy c: Review and revise the AA and AS degree requirements.              (Lead
      Persons: Craig Justice, Kathy Schmeidler)

      Strategy d: Implement the English departmental diagnostic test to determine
      whether students currently enrolled in writing courses are appropriately placed.
      (Lead Persons: Donna Sneed, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy e: Train English faculty to score the diagnostic test in order to establish
      inter-rater reliability for the cross-validation of the test. (Lead Persons: Norming
      Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy f: In conjunction with the departmental diagnostic, conduct a large-
      scale holistic norming session for evaluators. (Lead Persons: Norming
      Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy g: During in-service, conduct basic skills workshops for faculty in writing
      classes. (Lead Persons: Basic Skills Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy h: Design, implement and monitor program and course-level Student
      Learning Outcomes in English, Reading, ESS, ESL and Math basic skills. (Lead
      Persons: SLO Coordinators with respective Faculty)



      Outcome: Develop, publish and regularly evaluate instructional planning and
      student support so that students meet their educational goals.




                                                                                      202
        Evaluation: February 2, 2009


        Outcome Measures:

        2007-2008 Institutional Effectiveness Report:

Academic Overall     Basic Skills      Basic Skills
Year                 English Courses   Math Courses
2003-    70.7%       63.1%             48.2%
2004
2004-    71.2%       61.1%             52.4%
2005
2005-       70.7%    60.5%             56.9%
2006
2006-       71.6%    55.6%             58.5%
2007
2007-       71.0%    53.1%             55.9%
2008




                                                        203
       Research Files:

                         College-Level       Not College-Level

Semester                 SUCCESS RETENTION SUCCESS         RETENTION
Spring 2002   Rate       48.69%     61.26%   42.79%        53.79%
              Number     16,701     16,701   6,501         6,501
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       56.66%     64.94%   49.95%        58.17%
2002
              Number     11,311     11,311   3,199         3,199
              of
              Students
Fall 2002     Rate       48.03%     61.20%   42.12%        54.42%
              Number     18,127     18,127   7,288         7,288
              of
              Students
Spring 2003   Rate       46.92%     59.16%   40.22%        52.22%
              Number     17,477     17,477   6,708         6,708
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       55.92%     63.34%   43.80%        53.39%
2003
              Number     9,163      9,163    2,386         2,386
              of
              Students
Fall 2003     Rate       47.13%     59.79%   41.40%        53.40%
              Number     18,262     18,262   6,826         6,826
              of
              Students
Spring 2004   Rate       45.58%     58.17%   37.86%        49.25%
              Number     17,579     17,579   6,445         6,445
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       54.32%     63.16%   43.49%        51.95%
2004
              Number     9,658      9,658    2,456         2,456
              of
              Students
Fall 2004     Rate       46.48%     59.94%   41.13%        54.69%
              Number     17,196     17,196   5,791         5,791
              of


                                                                       204
              Students

Spring 2005   Rate       46.25%   59.04%   39.72%   51.98%
              Number     16,196   16,196   5,154    5,154
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       56.16%   63.82%   43.58%   55.12%
2005
              Number     9,516    9,516    2,003    2,003
              of
              Students
Fall 2005     Rate       46.66%   60.21%   44.17%   57.23%
              Number     16,583   16,583   5,300    5,300
              of
              Students
Spring 2006   Rate       45.77%   58.41%   38.69%   51.18%
              Number     16,394   16,394   5,268    5,268
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       55.63%   63.76%   44.24%   54.34%
2006
              Number     9,536    9,536    1,831    1,831
              of
              Students
Fall 2006     Rate       47.51%   61.76%   43.15%   56.51%
              Number     16,534   16,534   5,098    5,098
              of
              Students
Spring 2007   Rate       46.93%   59.69%   41.44%   53.94%
              Number     16,348   16,348   5,126    5,126
              of
              Students
Summer        Rate       55.74%   63.82%   44.92%   54.26%
2007
              Number     9,882    9,882    2,204    2,204
              of
              Students
Fall 2007     Rate       47.75%   62.58%   41.36%   53.84%
              Number     16,112   16,112   5,878    5,878
              of
              Students
Spring 2008   Rate       46.68%   59.33%   39.72%   52.34%
              Number     17,466   17,466   5,592    5,592
              of



                                                             205
           Students

Total      Rate       48.81%    60.83%    41.72%   53.60%
           Number     280,041   280,041   91,054   91,054
           of
           Students


2008 ARCC Report:




                                                            206
OBJECTIVE IV: Increase student success and persistence rates. (Linked to IVC Goals:
1, 3, 7 and District Goals 1, 2)

      Rationale: IVC may require additional Basic Skills curriculum in order to address
      the increasing needs for remediation among college students and to meet
      standards on the number and percentage of successful degree recipients and
      transfers to 4-year colleges as set by the State Chancellor's Office.

      Strategy a: Implement the paper and computer formats of the College Test for
      English Placement (CTEP). (Lead Persons: Vice Chancellor of Technologies
      and Learning Services, Tran Hong, Donna Sneed)

      Strategy b: Use the Departmental Diagnostic data to confirm the validity of the
      CTEP each semester and to adjust cut-scores as needed (Lead Persons:
      Norming Coordinator, Brenda Borron)

      Strategy c: Review the Math assessment test and implement recommended
      revisions. (Lead Persons: Kathy Schrader, Math Faculty)

      Strategy d: Increase tutorial services by building the Learning Assistance
      Program Center. (Lead Persons: Brandye D'Lena, Glenn Roquemore)

      Strategy e: Identify and allocate additional space for tutoring until the new
      Learning Assistance Program Center is built. (Lead Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy f: Increase counseling services through group advising and group
      workshops. (Lead Persons: Elizabeth Cipres, Counseling Faculty)

      Strategy g: Review the Basic Skills Math program to ensure that curriculum,
      course sequence, and services best serve the students. (Lead Persons: Kathy
      Schrader, Math Faculty)

      Strategy h: Develop and implement offerings for Basic Skills Math course
      modules so that students can progress through the course one step at a time.
      (Lead Person: Ilknur Erbas-White, Kathy Schrader)

      Strategy i: Complete a comparative analysis of Tutoring Services in similar-sized
      institutions and make changes in tutoring practices where appropriate. (Lead
      Persons: Craig Justice, Tutoring Faculty)

      Strategy j: Identify and designate space for discipline-specific, ticket-attached
      centers in ESS, reading, math, writing and ESL. (Lead Person: Craig Justice)

      Strategy k: Staff the discipline-specific, ticket-attached centers with classified
      employees. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice)




                                                                                    207
Strategy l: Install SARS Trak Kiosks at all tutorial locations and discipline
specific ticket-attached learning assistance program centers to collect students’
positive attendance via student swipe cards. (Lead Persons: District IT, Tran
Hong)

Strategy m: Visit World Languages Resource Centers at several local
community colleges in order to establish a similar Center at IVC. (Lead Persons:
Dan Rivas, World Languages Faculty)

Strategy n: Develop a course similar to Writing 180 that would provide World
Languages students supplemental instruction as needed. (Lead Persons: Dan
Rivas, World Languages Faculty))

Strategy o: Research and purchase appropriate equipment and software to
meet World Languages students’ needs in reading comprehension, writing,
grammar, vocabulary, listening, pronunciation, and speaking. (Lead Persons:
Dan Rivas, World Languages Faculty)

Strategy p: Train faculty to provide appropriate World Languages conferencing
technique and schedule faculty/student hours. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas,
Foreign Languages Faculty)

Strategy q: Provide training for future Math tutors. (Lead Person: Miriam
Castroconde)

Outcome: Develop, publish, regularly evaluate and improve a student support
model designed to maximize student success and retention.

Evaluation: February 2, 2009

Outcome Measures:
   2007/2008 IVC Institutional Effectiveness Report
   State Chancellor’s Data generated for the 2008/2009 Matriculation Site
     Visit




                                                                             208
OBJECTIVE V: Increase the number of ESL students who successfully complete the
ESL sequence and enroll in college-level English courses. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3, 7;
and District Goals 1, 3, 2):

      Rationale: There will be a steady increase in the Asian, Hispanic and Persian
      populations at IVC; IVC will see an increase in educationally and environmentally
      disadvantaged students with or without limited English skills. It is expected that
      students will take longer to complete their certificates and degrees and will incur
      a larger debt burden. IVC may require additional Basic Skills curriculum as an
      answer to the increasing needs for remediation among college students and
      scrutiny from the State Chancellor's Office on the number and percentage of
      successful degree recipients and transfers to 4-year colleges.

      Strategy a: Review and redesign the ESL program to ensure that the curriculum,
      course sequence, and services are aligned with the needs of students in this
      path. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy b: Explore the establishment of an ESL lab. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas,
      ESL Faculty)

      Strategy c: Visit ESL centers at other colleges in the State to establish
      benchmarks. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy d: Develop a course similar to Writing 180 to ESL students
      conferencing. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy e: Train faculty to provide appropriate conferencing. (Lead Persons:
      Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Strategy f: Research and purchase writing, grammar, vocabulary and
      listening/speaking skills software to meet the needs of students enrolled in the
      ESL lab. (Lead Persons: Dan Rivas, ESL Faculty)

      Outcome: Develop an ESL program with enhanced student support strategies
      that maximizes the opportunities for non-English speakers to complete the ESL
      sequence of courses and successfully enroll in college level English courses.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         ESL data as documented in the 2007 and 2008 ARCC Reports.
         ESL data as documented in the 2007/2008 IVC Institutional Effectiveness
           Report (Vice President of Technology and Learning Services, Director of
           District Research).




                                                                                     209
OBJECTIVE VI: Increase enrollment in courses in Lifelong Learning and contract and
workforce development. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 3, 4, 7; and District Goal 1)

      Rationale: There will be a sizeable increase in the number of people over the
      age of 45 in the next 5 years in the effective service area, as the service area
      becomes more mature. While there are opportunities for study in the
      vocational/technical education programs in basic education, and in community
      education courses, the bulk of the IVC curriculum is devoted to the purpose of
      transfer and general education.

      Strategy a: Evaluate the currency of the curriculum for Lifelong Learning and
      contract and workforce development. (Lead Persons: Dave Anderson, Kathy
      Schmeidler)

      Strategy b: Use the assessment of the curriculum for Lifelong Learning and
      contract and workforce development to write new curricula. (Lead Persons: Dave
      Anderson, Kathy Schmeidler)

      Strategy c: Investigate the establishment of a Business and Professional
      Institute. (Lead Persons: Dean of Workforce Development and Career Technical
      Education, Dave Anderson)

      Outcome: Under the direction of the Dean of Workforce Development and
      Career Technical Education, establish an effective program that is guided by
      data-driven decision making and systematic evaluation and improvement.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         The Director of the Emeritus Institute reviewed and revised the Emeritus
           Institute’s 68 piece of curriculum and embedded research data provided
           by the research office in the revised curriculum as well as three new
           pieces of curriculum. The curriculum underwent the curriculum review
           process in Spring 2008 (Emeritus Institute Director).
         In Spring 2008, based on the aforementioned research data, the Dean of
           Career Technical Education and Workforce Development proposed
           discussion on the following four new prospecti: (a) a Business &
           Professional Institute for 2008-2009; (b) a Physical Therapy Assistant
           Program; (c) a Paralegal Studies Certificate Program; and (d) a Health
           Information Technology Program. All prospecti will be evaluated within the
           new       Program     Development      and     Approval    Policy     (see
           http://www.ivc.edu/asenate/pages/docs.aspx) (Dean of Career Technical
           Education and Workforce Development).




                                                                                  210
                 A              B              C                   D
 4   Academic Year Desc   Term Desc                        Emeritus Institute
 5   1999-2000            Spring 2000   Enrollment Count                 1771
 6                                      Section Count                       49
 7                        Summer 2000   Enrollment Count                   861
 8                                      Section Count                       22
 9   2000-2001            Fall 2000     Enrollment Count                 1595
10                                      Section Count                       50
11                        Spring 2001   Enrollment Count                 1590
12                                      Section Count                       47
13                        Summer 2001   Enrollment Count                   723
14                                      Section Count                       18
15   2001-2002            Fall 2001     Enrollment Count                 1933
16                                      Section Count                       52
17                        Spring 2002   Enrollment Count                 2157
18                                      Section Count                       59
19                        Summer 2002   Enrollment Count                 1553
20                                      Section Count                       36
21   2002-2003            Fall 2002     Enrollment Count                 2605
22                                      Section Count                       70
23                        Spring 2003   Enrollment Count                 3037
24                                      Section Count                       76
25                        Summer 2003   Enrollment Count                 1549
26                                      Section Count                       29
27   2003-2004            Fall 2003     Enrollment Count                 3126
28                                      Section Count                       71
29                        Spring 2004   Enrollment Count                 3520
30                                      Section Count                       84
31                        Summer 2004   Enrollment Count                 2373
32                                      Section Count                       48
33   2004-2005            Fall 2004     Enrollment Count                 3819
34                                      Section Count                       92
35                        Spring 2005   Enrollment Count                 4404
36                                      Section Count                      107
37                        Summer 2005   Enrollment Count                 2809
38                                      Section Count                       67
39   2005-2006            Fall 2005     Enrollment Count                 4561
40                                      Section Count                      120
41                        Spring 2006   Enrollment Count                 4504
42                                      Section Count                       99
43                        Summer 2006   Enrollment Count                 3320
44                                      Section Count                       69
45   2006-2007            Fall 2006     Enrollment Count                 5036
46                                      Section Count                      107
47                        Spring 2007   Enrollment Count                 5056
48                                      Section Count                      114
49                        Summer 2007   Enrollment Count                 3531
50                                      Section Count                       78
51   2007-2008            Fall 2007     Enrollment Count                 5524
52                                      Section Count                      136
53                        Spring 2008   Enrollment Count                 4986
54                                      Section Count                      109
55                        Summer 2008   Enrollment Count                 3777
56                                      Section Count                       80
57   2008-2009            Fall 2008     Section Count                      112




                                                                                 211
OBJECTIVE VII: Update and implement the college’s marketing and recruitment plans.
(Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 7, 14; and District Goals 1, 4, 8, 10)

      Rationale: Recruiting efforts must be monitored and expanded to include off-
      campus locations, distance education offerings, and offerings to current high
      school students.

      Strategy a: Develop an annual enrollment management and recruitment plan.
      (Lead Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy b: Conduct an annual analysis of the effectiveness of the marketing
      and outreach projects each year; plan budget expenditures accordingly. (Lead
      Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy c: Develop a template for a college brochure in order to create a
      consistent marketing message for the college. (Lead Persons: Diane Oaks)

      Strategy d: Develop and implement a marketing plan for media outlets. (Lead
      Persons: Donna Sneed, Diane Oaks)

      Strategy e: Expand outreach efforts to area high schools. (Lead Persons: Donna
      Sneed)

      Outcome: Provide the community that we serve with an effective communication
      model that informs them of the quality and quantity of relevant educational
      opportunities offered by the college.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         2007/2008 Marketing and Enrollment Management Plan, e.g.,
                  o One-hundred High school visits in 2007/2008 (vs. 96 visits in
                    2006/2007)
         Documentation of communication outlets (established since February
           2007):
                  o Irvine World News (almost weekly)
                  o Orange County Register (10 times)
                  o Other features in regional newspapers
                  o Seven broadcasts on television, one radio broadcast




                                                                                212
OBJECTIVE VIII: Expand the Early College Program. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 3, 5,
7; and District Goal 1)

      Rationale: The K-12 schools in the effective service area are typically ranked in
      the top 10% in the state based on California’s Academic Performance Index.
      Students graduating from high schools in the effective service area typically
      have 4-year university acceptance rates that are much higher than the statewide
      average. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future. Partnerships among
      IVC, K-12, and 4-year institutions seeking to work within this service area, will be
      a necessity in order to increase enrollments.

      Strategy a: Implement the Early College Program at another local high school.
      (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)

      Strategy b: Explore the establishment of an Early College Program in the Irvine
      Unified School District. (Lead Persons: Craig Justice, Elizabeth Cipres)

      Outcomes: The continued expansion of the Early College Program within the
      Tustin Unified School District; the establishment of an Early College Program
      with the Irvine Unified School District and El Toro High School.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         Tracking first and second cohort of students from Beckman High School,
           starting in summer 2008.
         Documentation of ongoing exploration of establishment of an Early
           College Program with the Irvine Unified School District.
         Documentation of the establishment of an Early College Program with El
           Toro High School.




                                                                                      213
OBJECTIVE IX: Use college resources efficiently. (Linked to IVC Goals: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9;
and District Goals 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13)

      Rationale: The use of technology will be vital in controlling IVC’s increasingly
      energy efficient buildings and grounds; efforts will be made across campus to
      reduce energy costs of new courses. IVC’s size (population, buildings and
      grounds) will increase, resulting in increased staff and supply needs, on-going
      maintenance and repair, and deferred maintenance.


      Strategy a: Create a college facilities preventative maintenance program that
      incorporates all crafts. (Lead Person: John Edwards)

      Strategy b: Maintain safe and effective learning and working environments by
      creating a furniture refresh program, based on an assessment of all furniture.
      (Lead Person: John Edwards)

      Strategy c: Create a vehicle, cart and heavy equipment refresh program to
      ensure the college is programming replacements for high-value items. (Lead
      Person: John Edwards)

      Outcomes: The prevention of potential failures in the college infrastructure that
      could disrupt the execution of educational delivery or student support.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009


      Outcome Measures:
         Documented in Preventive Maintenance Plan, e.g.,
              o Remodeling of access road during Christmas break;
              o Test and renewal of fire alarms.




                                                                                    214
OBJECTIVE X: Strengthen campus security and emergency preparedness. (Linked to
IVC Goals: 1, 2, 5, 6, 9; and District Goal 3)

      Rationale: This objective supports the effectiveness of IVC’s public safety and
      emergency readiness for students, faculty and staff during emergencies.

      Strategy a: Publish and implement a campus security and emergency
      preparedness plan. (Lead Person: Will Glen)

      Strategy b: Install internet protocol cameras at strategic outdoor locations as a
      security tool. (Lead Persons: Will Glen, Tran Hong)

      Strategy c: Install tall security fencing around athletic fields to prevent vandalism
      and mitigate potential campus liability. (Lead Person: John Edwards, Will Glen)

      Outcomes: Ensure campus readiness for emergencies and disasters, and deter
      potential criminal activity in support of a safe and secure environment that is
      conducive to the educational mission of the college.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         Emergency Preparedness Plan




                                                                                       215
OBJECTIVE XI: Hire full-time faculty on a regular and consistent basis when fiscally
possible. (Linked to IVC Goals: 2, 7; and District Goal 10)

      Rationale: This objective helps maintain and increase IVC’s instructional
      effectiveness when facing preexisting program growth, the development of new
      programs, and the replacement of 2009-2010 through 2013 faculty retirements.

      Strategy a: Complete a needs analysis each year that includes separations
      (retirements, resignations, etc.), FTES growth trends, new program development,
      and 50%-law benchmarks. (Lead Persons: Glenn Roquemore, Craig Justice,
      Gwen Plano, Davit Khachatryan)

      Outcomes: The development of a systematic review and evaluation of IVC’s
      faculty hiring is intended to produce continuous excellence in academic services.

      Evaluation: February 2, 2009

      Outcome Measures:
         Number of new full-time faculty hired




                                                                                   216
Appendix D: Strategic Planning Proposal Forms (SP 1 and SP 2) and
Strategic Planning Proposal Process
(Draft)




                                                                217
                            Irvine Valley College
                  Strategic Planning Proposal Form (SP-1)
    Proposer's Name & Title                  SP Committee             Date Proposed            BDC Objective #
        Sample Name                        Academic                       1/31/2008
                                           Planning/IEC

                                          SECTION I: OBJECTIVE
College Goal(s)          Related College Goals: #1, # 2, #3, and #5
Supported

Strategic Planning       To establish new program "A". Research indicates that program "A" is in
Objective, with          high demand in Orange County. Program needs to be established by… to
Rationale and            establish IVC's lead on providing the educational services required.
Specific Timeline




Planning                 South Orange County Community College District serves a diverse
Assumptions and          population that is in need of program "A"
References




                                        SECTION II: STRATEGIES
                  (Note: Strategies are not required, until objectives have been approved by BDC)
Strategy #1              Department X will be working with the curriculum committee to design a
                         program which will serve the academic need in Area A.




Strategy #1




Strategy #3




Strategy #4




                                                                                                           218
                         Resource Assessment Worksheet (SP-2)
                          (Separate RAW is required for each strategy)
Objective #                                   Strategy #             (please use additional sheet if
Brief Description                                                      more space is needed for
Lead Person                                                                   comments)


                         2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13              Comment


I. Timeline                                Dates




II. Resources
Required

Personnel                                   FTE


 Existing
 Redirecting
 New


Technology                              Whole dollars


 Hardware
 Software
 Maintenance


Facilities                              Whole dollars


 Existing
 New
 Maintenance


Supplies and Materials                  Whole dollars


 Existing
 New
 Redirecting


Other (Specify)                         Whole dollars


 Existing
 New
 Redirecting

III. Revenue/
                                        Whole dollars
Savings

Existing Revenues
New Revenues
Savings/Cost Avoidance




                                                                                                  219
   IVC Strategic Planning Proposal Process (Draft)

1 Informal proposals with supportive evidence are sent to the Executive Council for initial review and
  referral. The Council determines whether the proposals are strategic or operational. If the proposal is
  strategic, it is referred to a Strategic Planning Committee for development. The Executive Council will
  direct operational proposals to the Budget Development Committee (BDC) for recommendation.

2 The assigned Strategic Planning Committee determines if the proposal is a strategy that supports a
  current Objective. If not, then the Committee jointly with the proposer develops a new objective and
  planning assumptions. Use form SP-1, Section I (Strategic Planning Proposal Form). New objectives
  are due by February 14.
3 Strategies are developed by the proposer to support the planning objective identified in step 2. Use
  form SP-1, Section II.

4 The completed SP-1 form (step 3) is submitted to the Strategic Planning Committee for review. The
  Chair submits the approved SP-1s to the BDC for review by March 1.

5 BDC reviews the submitted SP-1s and requests SP-2 (RAW-Resource Assessment Worksheet) for
  approved strategies if required from the proposer.

6 BDC completes the assessment of the strategies based on the SP-2 and makes recommendations to
  the President's Executive Council.

7 The President's Executive Council prioritizes the strategies contingent upon available funding.


8 BDC will assign responsible persons for the implementation of strategies.




                                                                                                     220
Appendix E: Final Resource Assessment Worksheet (RAW)




                                                        221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
Appendix F: Irvine Valley College Strategic Planning Oversight &
Budget Development Committee: Strategic Planning & College
Budget Development Process

                           Irvine Valley College

  Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee:
     Strategic Planning & College Budget Development Process


Overview
  The Strategic Planning Oversight & Budget Development Committee (SPOBDC),
  one of five committees within Irvine Valley College’s Strategic Planning Process,
  monitors budget development for the college. Funding requests are evaluated in
  light of the goals, objectives, and strategies of that process as well as program
  review.


Membership
  The SPOBDC includes representatives from all constituencies and governance
  groups:
     A. Administration (President-non voting, both vice presidents, one dean)
     B. Faculty (Academic Senate President, Academic Affairs Chair)
     C. Management (Director of Facilities, Director of Fiscal Services)
     D. Classified Staff (2)
     E. College Research and Planning Analyst
     F. Student (ASIVC representative)


Task
   The SPOBDC makes recommendations to the President’s Executive Council on the
   monetary implications and needs in the following principal areas: strategic planning,
   scheduled maintenance, capital outlay, classified hiring priorities, departmental
   budget development, and program reviews. The Executive Council may request
   recommendations pertaining to other areas as needed. The SPOBDC reviews all
   college budgets for consistency with the college strategic plan and program review.
   The SPOBDC will develop criteria for analyzing budget proposals. The SPOBDC
   may delegate recommendations on certain issues to the Director of Fiscal Services.
   The Director of Fiscal Services chairs the BDC and orders the agenda according to
   the fiscal calendar of the District and the State. The President’s Executive Council
   makes final disposition on the recommendations.




                                                                                      229
    All proposals for funding are submitted on the Resource Assessment Worksheet.
    The SPOBDC can request additional information from the proposal’s authors as
    needed. Once the SPOBDC has reviewed the proposals, and if relevant the
    department’s program review, the SPOBDC will prioritize the requests for the
    President’s Executive Council.

    The SPOBDC is responsible for:
      A. Notification of the proposal status and the rationale for any decision about the
      proposal;
      B. Assisting in the preparation of a draft budget by the end of April;
      C. Developing a protocol for the dissemination of additional funds should they
      become available; and
      D. Preparing a year-end report summarizing the actions taken by the
    Committee.

Proposed:    Academic Senate 3-18-07
Revised:     Strategic Planning Steering Team 7-11-07;
Revised:     Strategic Planning Steering Team (Email) 7-13-07
Revised:     Budget Development Committee 9-19-07
Revised:     Budget Development Committee 10-3-07
Approved:    Budget Development Committee 10-3-07
Approved:    Academic Senate 10-11-07
Revised:     BDC-2-27-08-To fully incorporate Strategic Planning & Budget Development
Revised:     SPOBDC-9-17-08-to make a change to the composition of SPOBDC(Classified Staff)




                                                                                              230
       Appendix G: Irvine Valley College Program Review/Planning Process


                                 IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE
                            PROGRAM REVIEW/PLANNING PROCESS

I.     PURPOSE OF PROGRAM REVIEW

       A.     Program review is an opportunity for self-study, self-renewal and recognition of
       the excellence of educational programs and support services. Program review also
       provides an opportunity to identify the need for improvement. Program review involves
       self-scrutiny by all college entities to determine how well each program or service is
       achieving objectives and advancing the mission, vision, goals and institutional learning
       outcomes of the college.1

       B.    A program may be defined as a certificate or degree program, a coherent
       educational experience such as tutoring or orientation program, a co-curricular learning
       program or an academic discipline.2

       C.      Program or service objectives and strategies shall be integrated with the college
       strategic planning process in order to pursue the congruence between the mission,
       vision, and goals of the college, including the institutional core learning outcomes as
       well as degree, certificate, program, and course learning outcomes.

II.    PROGRAM REVIEW/PLANNING CYCLE

       A.      All academic and student services programs are reviewed on a six year cycle.

       B.     The Office of the President, the Office of Instruction, and the Academic Senate
       collaborate on the development of the six-year program review cycle. In the spring of
       each year, the cycle is reviewed and revised, if necessary.

III.   THE PROCESS: KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

       A.      In the Spring prior to the year of the review:

       1.      The dean or director and the departmental faculty/staff develop program review
               teams.




       1
         Meehan, Kenneth, Research and Planning Group for CA Community Colleges citing E. Craven, (1980) Academic
       Program Evaluation. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 27
       2
         Beno, Barbara, Accreditation Notes, Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, , ( )


                                                                                                              231
      2.    The Office of Institutional Research and the dean or director assist the
            departmental faculty/staff in the development of key performance indicators,
            student surveys, and select the classes and/or offices to be surveyed.

      B.    In the Fall of the review, the Office of Planning and Research will:

      1.    Assist the dean or director and faculty/staff in administering the student surveys.

      2.    Compile and distribute data from the student surveys as well as data
      generated by key performance indicators.

IV.   ACADEMIC AND STUDENT SERVICES PROGRAM REVIEW TEMPLATES

      A.   In the Fall of the review, using the templates provided, the Program Review
      Team shall submit a preliminary draft to the dean or director for review.

      B. In the Spring of the review, the Program Review Team submits a final draft of the
      academic or student services template to the learning outcomes co-chair and the dean
      or director for review and approval.

      C. The dean or director shall forward the completed program review document to the
      Office of Instruction for review and approval.

      D. Upon approval from the Office of Instruction, the program review document shall be
      forwarded to the Office of the President for review and approval.

V.    PROGRAM REVIEW, BUGDET, AND COLLEGE STRATEGIC PLANNING

      A.      Program review recommendations, objectives, and strategies are a major
      component of the college strategic planning process which is designed to lead to
      enhanced utilization of existing resources commensurate with the college mission/vision
      statement and should increase the quality of instruction and services based upon
      institutional, program, degree, and course learning outcomes.

      B.    The final program review document is reviewed by the School and/or
      Department; the Instructional Council; and the Office of the President.

      1.    The Office of the President, the Office of Instruction, the Office of Student
            Services, and the Academic Senate will mutually agree upon which the
            program review recommendations, objectives, and strategies will be
            forwarded to the appropriate planning committee and/or the Strategic
            Planning Budget Development Committee for implementation
            commensurate with the budgetary considerations of the College.


      C.    In order to integrate program level planning within the College



                                                                                            232
Strategic Planning Process:

1.     All recommendations, objectives, and strategies regarding facilities
       (including classroom/labs) will be directed to the Academic and Facilities
       Planning Committee.

2.     All recommendations, objectives, and strategies for additional
       equipment will be directed to the Dean and/or the Vice President of Student
       Services to be incorporated into a budget proposal from the school, if
       appropriate, which will be considered in the College budget development
       process.

3.     All recommendations, objectives, and strategies for additional full-
       time faculty positions will be directed to the Dean for consideration in the
       development of Tier 3 of the Deans’ hiring priority proposal.

4.     All other recommendations, objectives, and strategies will be
       reviewed according to Section V. B. 1.




Proposed:                    10-11-06
Senate Approved:             10-12-06
Student Services Approved:   10-30-06
Dean’s Council Approved:     11-8-06
President Approved           11-16-06

Proposed Revisions:          7-12-07
(Strategic Planning
Steering Team)
Amended & Endorsed           8-7-07
(Instructional Council)
Amendments Approved          8-30-07
(Academic Senate)




                                                                                      233
Appendix H: Irvine Valley College Strategic Planning Process

                                      Irvine Valley College
                                  Strategic Planning Process
                                   (Five-Year Strategic Plan)

I. Introduction
The strategic planning process is designed to guide decision-making that shapes the future of
the college. This process is intended to provide for critical analysis of past achievements,
current status and the future needs of our programs, students and the community to define the
mission and vision of the college, and to develop a five-year strategic plan to support that
mission and vision. A strategic plan provides a framework for decisions about program and
course development based upon the program review process, enrollment, budget and facilities
planning, faculty, staff and administrative hiring, and college resource allocation. It defines the
goals of the college, outlines methods to achieve them, and allows for consistent and coherent
growth and development. Because it defines goals and objectives, a strategic plan also makes
possible definitive evaluation of outcomes for students, courses, programs, and the college as a
whole.

Wide and collaborative participation is essential to an effective long-term plan. This document
outlines a process which, with the participation of all members of the college community,
develops a five-year strategic plan. The strategic planning process is open and collaborative: it
solicits constructive input from all full-time and adjunct faculty members, full-time and part-time
classified staff members, student government representatives, and administrators/managers.


II. The Strategic Planning Process

       A. The Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget Development Committee
       For the purposes of developing and implementing the Strategic Plan, the Strategic
       Planning Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget Development Committee (SPST) will
       consist of the Academic Senate President or designee, the Classified Senate President
       or designee, the Vice President of Instruction, the Vice President of Student Services,
       the College President, and the College Researcher, and a representative from the
       Faculty Association, CSEA, ASIVC, and a classified manager. The SPST will elect an
       administrator and a faculty member to serve as co-chairs.


       B. The Role of the Strategic Planning Oversight and Budget Development
       Committee

       The SPST will:
        Oversee the implementation of the planning process.
        Review and finalize planning assumptions and criterion for institutional effectiveness
          developed by the focus groups.




                                                                                               234
C. Formation of the Focus Groups

There will be five Focus Groups:
 Academic Planning/Facilities/Educational Support/Technology Planning
 Institutional Effectiveness
 Student Success/Access
 Resource and Budget Planning
 Enrollment Management

Each Focus Group shall be composed of 7 members, as follows:
 2 members appointed by the Academic Senate, except for the Academic Planning
   Focus Group—the Senate will appoint 3 faculty members.
 1 member appointed by the Dean’s Council
 1 member appointed by the Classified Senate
 1 member appointed by CSEA
 1 member appointed by ASIVC
 1 member appointed by the Classified Managers

Each Focus Group shall appoint a chair.

The SPST co-chairs will meet with the focus group chairs periodically to discuss
strategies, progress, and problems that the Focus Groups may encounter.


D. The Role of the Focus Groups

Each Focus Group will develop goals, objectives, and implementation strategies
consistent with the college mission statement, institutional core learning outcomes, and
planning assumptions based on the recommendations of the program review process.
To assist with the development of the above, the following documents may be
considered by each focus group.

   The College Mission Statement and the College Vision Statement
   The Institutional Core Learning Outcomes
   Program Review Recommendations
   The Accreditation Report
   The Full-time Faculty Hiring Priorities List
   The California School Employees Association Contract
   The Classified Hiring Priorities List
   The Irvine Valley College Marketing Plan
   The Irvine Valley College Budget
   The Education and Facilities Master Plan
   The Foundation Strategic Plan
   The Academic Master Plan
   The Student Equity Plan
   The Organizational Assessment
   The Technology Initiative Report
   The Academic Employee Master Agreement


                                                                                      235
   The Matriculation Report
   The District Goals


E. Approval Process

The SPST co-chairs will distribute a draft of the goals, objectives, implementation
strategies, and planning assumptions created by each focus group to the college
community for review.

Comments and suggestions regarding the draft report are to be submitted to the co-
chairs of the SPST. The SPST will consider the comments and suggestions and revise
the report if necessary.


F. Final SPST Review and Development of the College Strategic Plan

The SPST, in consultation with focus groups, will meet to finalize the college strategic
plan and prepare the final document for submission to the college president for approval.



The Strategic Planning Process was introduced by the Academic Senate on 2/17/05
Revised:    3/4/05: College President
Revised:    3/11/05: Senate Cabinet
Reviewed: 3/24/05: Academic Senate
Approved: 4/6/05: Instructional Council
Approved: 4/6/05: President’s Council
Approved: 4/21/05: Academic Senate
Reopened for Revision: 6/20/05: College President & Senate Cabinet
Reviewed: 6/24/05: College President & Senate Cabinet
Revised:    6/27/05: College President & Senate Cabinet
Adpoted: 9/1/05:      College President & Academic Senate
Revised: 10/19/05: College President & Academic Senate
Adopted: 10/28/05: College President & Academic Senate
Revised:    8-31-06: College President & Academic Senate
Revised:    9-28-06: President’s Council & Academic Senate




                                                            Adopted: 9-28-06




                                                                                      236

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:1/10/2012
language:English
pages:236
jianghongl jianghongl http://
About