Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the College Corps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
GoServe seeks $83.6 million to expand College Corps; LAO raises concerns about administrative share and duplicative services
Summary
The Governor's Office of Service and Community Engagement proposed $83.6 million ongoing to continue and expand the College Corps program, which pays students up to $10,000 for 450 hours of public service; LAO said about $45 million of the request is for administrative costs and recommended rejecting the expansion given budget constraints and
Get email alerts on the College Corps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Governor's Office of Service and Community Engagement asked the subcommittee for $83.6 million in ongoing general fund beginning in 2026‑27 to continue and scale the College Corps program, which pairs undergraduate students with community service opportunities and provides up to $10,000 for 450 hours of service.
Anthony Chavez, the office's chief deputy director, said College Corps emphasizes workforce development and civic service, arguing the program provides students — especially low‑ and middle‑income students and Dream Act recipients — with debt‑reducing compensation plus service and career experience. Chavez said the program has placed thousands of students in service roles, recorded large applicant demand and aims to expand partnerships to more than 50 campuses and roughly 4,000 students annually with the proposed funding.
The Legislative Analyst's Office raised concerns about program duplication and administrative costs, noting that campuses already operate service and career programs, federal work‑study exists, and California has parallel incentive programs for service‑linked aid (for example, the Dream Act service incentive). LAO said about $45 million of the proposed $84 million would cover administrative expenses and that the California Volunteers office would receive 48 new permanent positions to administer the expanded program. Given the state's fiscal constraints and proposed cuts elsewhere in higher education, LAO recommended rejecting the governor's expansion.
Committee members expressed sympathy for the program's service goals but questioned whether similar services exist on campuses and whether the state should create a permanent ongoing appropriation during a period of proposed higher‑education reductions. The subcommittee held the item open for further consideration.
