[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6528018,"mediaKeyId","3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d","parentId",3451210,"title","Board approves tech and ID steps to curb CCCApply fraud; debate over application fee continues","audioSeconds",144,"startMs",2484000,"endMs",2628000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d&start=2484&end=2628","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d/thumbnail_2484000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6528018/California/Board-approves-tech-and-ID-steps-to-curb-CCCApply-fraud-debate-over-application-fee-continues","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528018-ee7314f6fc0e29b500df25e025f5a558/orig.mp4?Expires=1770950925&Signature=NK1LRpGxXGHBQ2WjOIgFTedPXO7y121NL-pfdvfNgzgTGFQoXYNCfw5lETY5xIvaLPKINL3rcj0QiRU4AJKG1jCtMGsLmfKgXM~lgdRDUJ0a100lAbyUOXPsws2eT7vJ2e5bkY1dAPPnM1pehgsv4hJFE83QDGEYnOsO3oeyuHYkZunHoB8TwfFuuMGECZzl-OnxgZ9kpjS7DtF~ZJyVFmCfMsMpM1tTICEcdRvmTwdS0N000v3IL3Bm6xateuW6KGvdUJUVbFEkE1D6rT~TBgGgbl4PZTYOwYTzvu8NVeWNX~Jy5L0eGgBev5kVZfELqFGPKTiysGRF3yatz0ZYCw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Community Colleges","date","2025-05-22T00:00:00Z","article","The Board of Governors debated a three‑part package to combat fraudulent applications and bot enrollments in the California Community Colleges system: (1) mandatory identity verification at the CCCApply application stage, (2) deployment of additional AI/technology tools to detect fraudulent application behavior, and (3) authority to pursue a nominal application fee to deter fraud and defray verification costs.

Executive Vice Chancellor Chris Ferguson framed the problem for the board, saying systemwide attempts at application‑stage fraud are large and growing. “The latest data … is around 31.4% of the applications have been determined to be fraudulent,” Ferguson said, clarifying that those attempts do not all make it through to enrollment but that the phenomenon imposes significant workload on campuses and can block authentic students from seats.

Assistant Vice Chancellor James Todd and other system leaders described the layered approach the office proposed: (a) require identity verification through CCCApply, (b) deploy advanced algorithmic detection and other tech tools to flag suspicious patterns (for example, many applications from a single IP address), and (c) seek legislative authority to permit a nominal application fee as one tool among several.

Public comment was extensive and heavily opposed to any fee. Student speakers and student advocacy groups repeatedly urged the board not to authorize a fee, describing the fee as a barrier that would deter low‑income, undocumented, dual‑enrollment, and housing‑insecure students. “Charging students just to apply … is going to negatively impact students' basic needs,” said Annie Krug of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges. Multiple student speakers — including student trustees and campus student government leaders — recounted personal and peer experiences where even small costs or burdens would have deterred enrollment.

Board action and votes:
- An initial motion that bundled all three actions failed on an earlier roll call where several members abstained. (Roll call included a mix of ayes and abstentions; the motion did not pass.)
- The board then considered an amended motion limited to items (1) and (2). That amended motion passed on a roll call with the members present voting Aye.
- After further discussion and repeated public comment, the board passed a second, separate motion directing the chancellor’s office to “explore the imposition of a nominal application fee not to exceed $10 or actual cost, whichever is lower,” and to explore refund/credit or waiver options for students with demonstrated financial hardship. That motion passed by roll call.

What passed: mandating identity verification at CCCApply and systemwide deployment of advanced technological/AI fraud detection tools. The board also authorized staff to explore legislative authority for a capped nominal application fee with required waiver/refund mechanisms; the board did not impose a fee in this meeting.

Why it matters: staff said the application stage is the choke point the chancellor's office can address centrally. By reducing the universe of fraudulent applications at source, they argued, campuses would face less labor‑intensive enrollment scrubbing and more authentic students would access classes. Opponents said even a small fee risks excluding the very students community colleges are meant to serve.

Representative quotes from officials and public commenters
- \"We are asking the board today to ... first enhance our ability to stop further fraud at that application stage,\" Ferguson told the board. \"The second is to direct us to implement more technology tools ... and the last ... is to seek authority to implement a potential application fee.\" (Chris Ferguson)
- \"We have a system that is absolutely barrier free for students. We've made the largest education system in the country that's open access really open access,\" said Assistant Vice Chancellor James Todd, urging the board to balance access and fraud prevention.
- \"Please do not vote to pursue statutory authority to charge an application fee,\" said multiple student speakers during public comment; Annie Krug (SSCCC vice president for legislative affairs) testified that an application fee would shift the default from access to restriction.

Implementation and next steps: staff said they will move quickly to implement the identity verification and AI detection work already funded in recent investments and will convene broad stakeholder consultation — including students, faculty, admissions officers, and district IT leaders — to design any fee policy or waiver process before returning to the board or seeking legislative language. They stressed any fee would require statutory authorization before it could be charged.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","CCC Board of Governors Meeting | May 2025 | Part C","oneSentenceSummary","The Board of Governors approved mandatory identity verification in CCCApply and additional AI/technology fraud detection tools after hearing from staff and dozens of public commenters; the board stopped short of imposing a fee but later directed staff to explore a capped nominal application fee with waivers.","taxTitle","California Community Colleges, Other State Agencies, Executive, California","taxId",15998,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528023,"Chancellor’s office backs bills to expand CalFresh access, tracks dozens of higher‑education proposals",268,930000,1198000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d&start=930&end=1198","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d/thumbnail_930000.jpg","/articles/6528023/California/Chancellors-office-backs-bills-to-expand-CalFresh-access-tracks-dozens-of-highereducation-proposals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528023-52b379ea0181fd411690709097120c5a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770950925&Signature=SfmZr59xY4LxttWPr2gffO0LQhT7fUtybX~9ngU8q9KpxiGJblDxdyVZZavo-mAYjT3J48RD7PNnxum947nE0Yl3rqI6RuV8dgJoAusdlKwqf7Hja1BTyWHY8b4x1OF8JVqEub1EGgrd0Mf5nBOFlRCFON2X3MgcTq~AMY1KNj3PVGUoPaYzLAF2sV1wZpWMKL0uBwZkpQuDzH8qaC~hfCeixr6CeHYjoiCRAV6tdw1eCYtjO63uJVcykJEMEb-txefj8pcCVAezEG3K1FZSQkZRPZFVHYadUFBasxDLpGDGQJkttRFGAdZ7wjDeWVltPHExm1Y3TCcaGbPfL4ikmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy and government relations staff briefed the Board of Governors on state legislation affecting community colleges, saying about 80–85 tier‑one bills remain under close review and many are held in suspense ahead of a key legislative deadline.

Government relations staff highlighted two bills they are supporting on CalFresh (California’s SNAP program): AB 593 by Assemblymember Wicks and SB 761 by Senator Ashby. Staff described SB 761 as “historic,” explaining it would treat campus‑based programs of study at public higher education institutions as local educational programs that increase employability, which would simplify students’ eligibility for CalFresh work‑requirement exemptions and expand student eligibility.

“We are supporting … AB 593 by Assemblymember Wicks, and SB 761 by Senator Ashby,” the government relations briefing said, adding that SB 761 could open CalFresh eligibility for more than 220,000 community college students, an estimated $513,000,000 in food benefits to the state if fully realized.

Staff also discussed other bills on their watch list. They noted that the board sponsors a set of measures (including a fee‑policy bill and a legislative reporting sponsor bill), and that one legislative priority—SB 3083/363 (sponsor language referenced during the presentation)—had strong support and was unlikely to face major hurdles. The office said it was actively negotiating amendments on several bills to avoid unfunded mandates and to reduce district workload, noting that the package of bills in suspense could impose on the order of $170,000,000 of ongoing local costs (with roughly $20,000,000 to the chancellor’s office).

Board members asked about specific bills that had received public questions. Staff discussed AB 695, which the board briefed as a proposal that would exempt certain students from nonresident tuition if they re‑enroll in online programs after deportation; staff said they had not yet taken a position because of operational concerns (how to verify deportation status and possible legal complexities). They also noted AB 21 (2017) as prior statute that required institutions to take steps to preserve access for students who were detained or deported and said the new bill would require additional rulemaking to verify status.

Public commenters and representatives from faculty and student organizations echoed the office’s concern about unfunded mandates and the need to align policy goals with fiscal resources. The Campaign for College Opportunity highlighted AB 934 (degree‑audit/retroactive awarding) as a student‑centered bill the advocacy community supports while acknowledging implementation complexity and phased approaches.

Ending note: staff said they are actively negotiating amendments with authors’ offices and would bring proposed positions back to the board as items firm up; many of the bills remain in suspense pending the legislative committee deadlines later in the week.","Government relations staff told the board they are tracking roughly 80–85 tier‑one bills this session (down from 105–106), highlighted support for AB 593 and SB 761 to expand CalFresh access for students, and signaled ongoing negotiations around bills that could impose new local costs on districts.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6528027,"May revision shifts $492 million from community colleges to K‑12, Chancellor’s office warns of multi‑year risks",0,1098000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d&start=1098&end=1098","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3451210-3e8f3a60be1113cef1754b2fb00b251d/thumbnail_1098000.jpg","/articles/6528027/California/May-revision-shifts-492-million-from-community-colleges-to-K12-Chancellors-office-warns-of-multiyear-risks","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6528027-969b3adead9e00164dbcd822a28856a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770950925&Signature=DtWCcR1CXQ7T75TK6Epy6VR-wZlId1dy95dBomhMXjMSPlOfEMO3g8P2quRCDKGEcvsmwPl10nTtl793SgqQKO7tDNRSe9kmqT~QveUck5LWoOpmeWQnQ~ep1rveqYppxVDL7cdDI4K3AD~amtkZYPTBj7O7lR~BpY2aqgjmsJJS8XRGgm9T2yKzbL2KplvnXvkqCo1Cp-H82jt1fpYyVJhh90i-5~7aDERnpb7pdw1UDw6OO98-ucIWEIzXDYlTbYaJNXYJUwzFW9JwJU9D6jsl5b5xyhw-dQ55c9Qi84~hDRPlMI3JkDOFFCjRThtHxE2RodTsI3Gtufr8ooTO3A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Executive Vice Chancellor Chris Ferguson told the Board of Governors on the May agenda that the May Revision of the state budget reduces the overall Prop. 98 guarantee and reallocates funding tied to Transitional Kindergarten, moving roughly $492,000,000 from the community college side of the guarantee to K‑12.

“The MABRA vision reflects a roughly $12,000,000,000 deficit,” Ferguson said during the board presentation, adding that the administration has rebenched the Prop. 98 guarantee and shifted dollars connected to Transitional Kindergarten to the K‑12 side. He summarized the immediate effects as two core issues: the guarantee declines in the budget year, and a three‑year window shift of roughly $492,000,000 away from community colleges, of which about $233,000,000 is ongoing.

Why it matters: the chancellor’s office said the package nonetheless funds growth and a student‑centered funding formula (SCFF) COLA, and preserves some statewide priorities such as progress on a common cloud data system and credit‑for‑prior‑learning policies. But the office warned that the mix of reappropriations, withdrawals from the state’s reserve, and a $531,600,000 deferral increases out‑year risk for the system.

Ferguson explained that the $531.6 million deferral “does mean that there’s a level of risk in the out years for our system.” He described how deferrals work in practice: colleges receive some apportionment payments one year later, giving the state short‑term budget relief but shifting cash timing risk to districts.

The chancellor’s office also highlighted smaller changes in core investments: the SCFF COLA was reduced modestly (from 2.43% to about 2.3% in the presentation), and categorical COLA funding was trimmed. System investments in collaborative enterprise resource planning (ERP), credit for prior learning, and career‑passport one‑time funds were also reduced relative to prior proposals.

Facilities and student housing: staff reported changes to the governor’s proposed facilities list—two projects proposed in the governor’s budget were withdrawn by campuses and one project (Davies Hall at American River College) was added. For student housing, the administration signaled it would not provide additional state funds to cover local cost overruns for existing grantees and would not reallocate funds from two rescinded projects in the current year; those funds might be reconsidered in a later year.

Board members pressed staff on what the shift means for district fiscal health. Ferguson and Executive Vice Chancellor staff noted that districts hold widely varying reserves—some have roughly six weeks of reserves while others have many months—and that their office will continue fiscal monitoring and intervention where needed. \"Depending upon the size of your reserves will depend upon your ability to either self‑fund a deferral or need to access the market,\" Ferguson said.

Ending note: staff emphasized that the May Revision remains subject to the legislative process and that assumptions (including federal policy and tariff impacts) create substantial uncertainty. The office said it will continue to brief districts, model cash needs, and work with campuses to mitigate the effects of deferrals and shifted Prop. 98 treatment.

","California Community Colleges officials told the Board of Governors that the May Revision rebench of the Proposition 98 guarantee shifts roughly $492 million away from the community college side to K‑12 for Transitional Kindergarten, and that a $531.6 million deferral and lower COLA create material multi‑year fiscal risk for colleges.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board approves tech and ID steps to curb CCCApply fraud; debate over application fee continues

Chancellor’s office backs bills to expand CalFresh access, tracks dozens of higher‑education proposals

May revision shifts $492 million from community colleges to K‑12, Chancellor’s office warns of multi‑year risks