Monday, November 24, 2014

CCAE's sample letter to Gov. Brown


November XX, 2014
The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Saving K-12 Based Adult Education
Dear Governor:
On behalf of the signatories of this letter, we wish to convey our strong support for ensuring stability for K-12 based adult education in California by providing stable, dedicated resources to K-12 adult schools based on the regional plans they’ve developed under AB 86.  In our community….
-        # served, types of programs, # of locations/sites
-        Information on partnerships
-        Information on outcomes (community-beneficial outcomes)
-        Expand on info relative to K-12 based Adult Education in your community/region
Since 2010, over 30 K-12 based adult schools have closed statewide and over 40 have had their budgets cut by more than 50%. At its peak in 2005, nearly 1.4 million Californians were enrolled in K-12 based Adult Education programs statewide including English as a Second Language (ESL), citizenship, High School Diploma/GED and basic skills, workforce and career technical training and more.  These educational programs play an integral role in providing the means and opportunity for these students to prepare themselves for successful entry into the workforce and as participating members of their communities.
With the intense focus on year-over-year budget shortfalls for California education, the very real economic benefits derived from the state’s public investment in K-12 based Adult Education and workforce development programs have been overlooked and decimated. Numerous studies have shown that even, in difficult economic times, a preemptive focus on Adult Education actually saves governments money by reducing healthcare, public assistance and incarceration costs. It also improves and expands the nation’s available pool of human capital by helping motivated but under educated people achieve gainful employment in today’s increasingly high-tech and global job market. K-12 based Adult Education and Career Technical training are one of the most cost-effective tools in the state, with infrastructure and capacity currently in place to meet the need.
While we support the effort for systems serving adults to coordinate and collaborate regionally, we are highly concerned about elimination of access for those most in need.  The bottom line is that K-12 based Adult Education is too important to allow it to be eliminated.  While we can appreciate the difficulties school districts have faced in recent years and the interest in a more coordinated adult education system, the success of K-12 students depends on the success and engagement of their parents and community. In many districts, K-12 students’ parents are the ones relying on the K-12 Adult Education programs the most.
Adult Education is an investment in the future of our community, state and our families, as research shows that better educated parents raise better educated, more successful children, who are less likely to end up in poverty or prison. We strongly urge your Administration to provide stability for K-12 based Adult Education through adequate, dedicated funding in the January 2015 FY 15-16 budget proposal. Stability and clarity for school districts to plan their budgets around will help to ensure regional needs are met and will help ensure pathways continue to be developed locally around the State with community college and Workforce Investment Board partners.
We look forward to working with you to accomplish this goal and develop a framework that maintains your desire for local decision making and control under the AB 86 process, assures K-12 based access for adult learners, provides a sufficient level of dedicated funding, and above all else ensures successful outcomes for adult learners. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Dawn Koepke with McHugh, Koepke & Associates at (916) 930-1993. Thank you!
Sincerely,
No signatures necessary, just names and titles below and logos at the top of the letter
Xxxx Xxxxx
</span></p> <p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left: -27pt;margin-right: -31pt;"> <span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"> </span></p> <p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left: -27pt;margin-right: -31pt;"> <span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"> </span></p> <p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;margin-left: -27pt;margin-right: -31pt;"> <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">Cc:</span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;"><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre;"> </span></span><span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">California Adult Education Administrators Association (CAEAA)</span></p> <p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.15;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size:13px;font-family:Arial;color:#000000;background-color:transparent;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:none;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;">California Council of Adult Education (CCAE)</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt 0in;"> <span id="docs-internal-guid-56b0a9fa-e436-3b3a-0410-d94a50dc2b66"><br></span></p> </div> <div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt -27pt;"> <p> <font data-blogger-escaped-style="background: yellow; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-highlight: yellow;"><!--data-blogger-escaped-<title></span><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt -27pt;"> <span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt -27pt;"> <span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt -27pt;"> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Cc:    California Adult Education Administrators Association (CAEAA)</span><span style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in -31.5pt 0.0001pt 0in; text-align: justify;"> <span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">California Council of Adult Education (CCAE)<o:p></o:p></span></p> -->



Friday, October 31, 2014

October Newsletter from Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community

C A L I F O R N I A

ADULT EDUCATION

A Newsletter on Adult Education in California
October 2014

SB 173 ADDS TO THE MIX ON CONSORTIA PLANNING

With significant amendments, Senator Carol Liu’s SB 173 passed the legislature and was approved by Governor Brown. As amended, its provisions add to the factors applicable to the present AB 86 work, calling for the following:

• Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) and the state Chancellor’s Office (CO)
to issue assessment and policy guidelines to be used for purposes of student placement in adult
education.

• Requires CDE and CO to issue policy recommendations to the legislature regarding a comprehensive accountability system for adult education.

• Requires CDE and CO to issue recommendations on adult education fees.

• Requires the CO, in conjunction with CDE, to annually report on courses and student
enrollments in adult education, and report on deficits in course offerings based on needs
identified by adult education consortia.

• Requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges to submit recommendations by July 1, 2016 on the reciprocity of adult
education instructors in K-12 districts and community colleges.

The good news is that with the enactment of SB 173, the legislature and Governor are affirming that the work of the adult education consortia is being taken seriously. SB 173 further affirms that a new adult education program will begin on July 1, 2015, and the continued work of the consortia will be needed to implement the AB 86 consortia plans. The added factor of the SB 173 accountability also will serve to inform state decision makers on the effectiveness of adult education!programs.

What to Do . . .

MULTIPLE APPROACHES NEEDED TO INFORM LEGISLATORS

As 2015 approaches and the state legislature and governor begin their work, it becomes critical that all state legislators are aware of what is at stake for adult education and that they get information on your programs and your AB 86 consortium work. One approach to informing legislators will not be enough.

Versions of the following are needed: Visits to local offices; Invitations for legislators to see your
programs and participate in your events; and Letters from staffs and students.

The current reality in the state legislature is that an increasing percentage of members comes from families that are much like those of students in adult education. The new President Pro Tem of the State Senate, Kevin de Leon, in his inaugural speech, praised his mother for overcoming significant barriers in raising her family. The support is there in the legislature, but members need the information to become fellow advocates for adult education.

Developed by Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community

Sunday, October 26, 2014

The History of AB 86



Assembly Bill 86 was introduced on January 10, 2013 (http://openstates.org/ca/bills/20132014/AB86/)

The same day that Governor Brown announced his plan to shift adult education to the community college system:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2013-14/pdf/BudgetSummary/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
(see page 23)



"The governor’s budget proposal in January 2013 suggested housing all adult education in the community colleges. This met resistance from the adult education community, leading the governor, in his May Revision, to propose a new “regional consortia” system patterned on the LAO recommendation and now embodied in two pieces of legislation passed in July."
http://www.cft.org/contact-us/198-article/699-adult-education-new-regional-consortia-meld-state-programs.html

"Public outcry was huge in 2012 when Gov. Jerry Brown proposed shifting all adult education programs to community colleges within two years. Protest from faculty prompted the governor to relent. In a compromise move, he endorsed AB 86."
http://www.cta.org/Professional-Development/Publications/2014/03/March-2014-Educator/AdultSchool.aspx 

"Brown relented as part of a budget compromise, deciding instead that districts must keep their adult education programs afloat for the next two years while working with their local community colleges on a plan to streamline the courses by developing regional consortia to oversee the programs."
http://edsource.org/2013/older-adult-and-parent-ed-programs-left-out-of-adult-education-budget-compromise/36251#.VE7QYyLF9ra 




Wednesday, October 15, 2014

Governor’s Budget Summary – 2013-14

Adult Education and Apprenticeship Realignment

Currently, K‑12 school districts and community colleges are authorized to provide adult
education instruction. However, there is no statewide requirement or mechanism to
coordinate the efforts of these two systems. As a result, the state has an inefficient
and redundant system that is not always structured in the best interest of adult learners.
Further, funding for the K‑12 adult education program is currently flexible, available for any
educational purpose, and many districts are eliminating their programs and redirecting this
funding to support their core instructional programs.

To create a more accountable and centralized adult education learning structure,
the Budget proposes $315.7 million Proposition 98 General Fund to fund a comparable
K‑12 adult education service delivery system. It proposes an increase of $300 million
to support the program within the community colleges. It also shifts $15.7 million for
the Apprenticeship Program. The proposal eliminates the current bifurcated system and
places the community colleges in a position to improve coordination at the regional and
statewide levels. Community colleges are better positioned than K‑12 schools to address
the needs of adult learners because that is their core function. Funding will be allocated
from a new adult education block grant based on the number of students served, and the
colleges will be encouraged to leverage the capacity and expertise currently available at
the K‑12 district adult schools. Additional detail on this proposal is discussed in the Higher
Education Chapter.Governor’s Budget Summary – 2013-14

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2013-14/pdf/BudgetSummary/Kthru12Education.pdf



Thursday, October 9, 2014

September Newsletter from Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community

C  A  L  I  F  O  R  N  I  A
ADULT EDUCATION
A Newsletter on Adult Education in California
September 2014
DELIBERATIONS ON ADULT EDUCATION TRIGGER MAJOR ISSUES:
As the upcoming legislative session gets closer, major adult education issues are surfacing that require thoughtful analysis. The following are offered for initial review, and this is offered with the thought that others may also surface.

Level of 2015-16 Funding for Adult Education:
Prior to the 2009 flexibility authority, K-12 adult education received over $750 million that was restricted to the program. Since flexibility, about half of the funds have been swept for other district purposes. Now a critical question is what would be the right amount for 2015-16.

Seventy AB 86 regional adult education consortia are presently analyzing the need for adult education programs. The consortia work should result in a funding request in excess of any past amounts.  The AB 86 documents indicating statewide figures for adult education substantiates the need.  As examples, in California 7,322,792 adults lack a high school diploma and 15,728, 547 are classified as English learners. Assigning one adult education A.D.A. to each English learner would amount to over $37 billion.

2015-16 Funding from the State to the Local District:
Once an amount is determined, the next issue is how will the funds get to the local district. Should the funds go directly to the district or should they go to a consortium to be distributed to each district. K-12 adult education advocates prefer that the funds go straight to the district because of the following:
  • Avoids another level of bureaucracy
  • Keeps the adult education connected to the district and allows it to serve the needs of parents and credit recovery for high school students
  • Avoids conflicts with facility usage

Consortium Continuation, Parenting, Older Adults, and Closed Programs:
A number of other issues will need to be explored further within the context of a new adult education program.  Consortia participants need to analyze the consortia in terms of  how the work needs to continue with state support.  Districts and consortia need to advise on whether parenting and older adults programs have a future role in the program. Another topic that needs to be included is what should be done about district programs that were eliminated during flexibility.

WHAT TO DO? . . .
Visit your local legislators and their staffs, and also invite them to your programs. Inform them about your consortium activities and the great potential for increasing educational opportunities for adults.


Developed by Adult Education Advocates in the Montebello Community


Friday, September 19, 2014

Heed the Warning

This letter deems outsourcing to K-12 Adult Ed illegal and, once again, makes assertions that are untrue.

There are many reasons to support desigated funding for K-12 AE.  

This letter provides another one...


April 14, 2014
Coast Community College District
1370 Adams
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Dear Board of Trustees, Coast Administration, Faculty, Students, and the immediate community
served by the CCCD:

We, the chairs and co-chairs, of the English as a Second Language (ESL) departments of the three CCCD colleges, Coastline, Orange Coast College (OCC), and Golden West College (GWC), would like to reply to and address the concerns related to our departments in relation to the proposal to be discussed by the Board of Trustees on Wednesday, April 16, 2014.  The proposal, “Community Services Considerations  and Recommendations,” outlines a plan to outsource all ESL courses more than two levels below English 100 to local K-12 Adult Education programs.  As we understand the Ed code policies, this proposal would be not only devastating to the second language students of the Coast District but would also be illegal:
SB 1456 (2012) Section 8/78213 a.3:  Assessment instruments shall  not be used to exclude students from  admission to community colleges.

While we  understand that it would be ideal to have students who place two levels below Freshman Composition (English 100) in order to guarantee higher numbers of students succeeding in Freshman Comp and/or other college-level classes, the reality is that the majority of second-language students need more levels of ESL:

Although international students may have a TOEFL score of 500, many still place below the desired two levels below English 100.  Additionally, students who come from intensive language schools with whom we have agreements also place below the two levels.

 Lastly, we have international students who have graduated from American (mostly private) high schools who face the same situation. International students would not want to spend years in intensive language schools, and their parents would not want to have to bear this expense. If this proposal were put into effect, our District would lose a substantial amount of revenue generated by international student fees.

Coastline receives from $79,000 to $100,000 per year (depending on enrollment) in Title II funds
to supplement their ESL courses. This funding is only available for beginning-level non-credit ESL courses. The college would not want to lose this funding.  District-wide FTES apportionment for ESL courses more than two levels below transfer also needs to be taken into consideration. Coastline, for example, earned 652 FTES for 2012-13. At $4,500 per FTES, this represents $2,934,000 in apportionment. The courses at Coastline’s highest level, two levels below transfer, would account for a very small portion of this income.Resident students (members of the community) rely on financial aid—which cannot be used for community education courses-- for their ESL courses. Financial aid used for ESL courses (up to 30 units) does not count toward Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP). The District would not only be providing a disservice to these students but would also be missing out on a sorely needed source of revenue.

The California Academic Senate’s 2010 recommendation states that “Course reductions in
transfer, basic skills, or career technical education courses or programs should occur only after
collegial consultation with the local academic senate as defined in Title 5.” All the ESL courses in the CCCD fall under the Basic Skills category.

According to the Student Success Initiative, students who need remediation through basic skills
should have access to those courses, starting with their first year of college. The 110 unit cap on
transfer/degree units does not count basic skill or ESL units.  Clearly, much thought has been put into the above mentioned proposal. Nevertheless, it is imperative to check legalities regarding the Ed Code, as well as issues related to the ACCJC and other Accreditation issues. Faculty members who served on the committee charged with making recommendations for this project specified that it should not destroy any part of any existing academic program within the district. This recommendation was not honored. Above all, we need to provide a pedagogically sound program for ESL students in the district. The Huntington Beach Adult Education program, for example, receives a large portion of its funding from WIA Title II grants. Funding is based on pre-post test gains on the CASAS test, which assesses proficiency in “Life Skills” ESL (for shopping, banking, driving, and other functions needed for survival in the community). The ESL programs at OCC, GWC, and CCC focus on academic reading, writing, speaking, and note-taking skills needed for success in college.

The AB 86 task force is responsible for determining (over time, in a thoughtful way) the optimal
relationship between K-12 Adult Education ESL programs in our community and our college ESL
programs and the functions each should have in order to offer the best possible education for our
students. We respectfully request that you allow this process to go forward as planned.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with all of you.
Respectfully,

Academic Senate Members
(I haven't included names here)

Source:http://www.orangecoastcollege.edu/about_occ/AcademicSenate/Agendas%20and%20Minutes/AS%20Meeting%20Docs%2005-06-14.pdf

FOR INFORMATION ON THE FALL PUSH CLICK HERE.

IF YOU AREN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
ACTIVELY ADVOCATE FOR DESIGNATED FUNDING FOR K-12 ADULT ED!
Contact Alliance4CAS@gmail.com for more info.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

What determines the content and nature of public policies?

The AB86 regional consortia system does not include funding for Older Adult Education and Parent Education.  

The California Department of Education’s 2011 “Linking Adults to Opportunity” report on adult education has an excellent section on the “ripple effects” of adult education.  These effects included better community health, greater school success for children, stronger families, and reduced recidivism. Adult school programs for older adults and adults with disabilities, along with parent education and family literacy classes, contribute to these “ripple effects” just as much  as workforce preparation,  programs, and perhaps more.  The state of California should continue to fund these programs, so that our communities can continue to reap the benefits. (Save Your Adult School blog post, written by Kristen Pursley on 5/10/13)


DEMOGRAPHICS OF CALIFORNIA’S SENIOR POPULATION

Compiled by California Commission on Aging
California’s population age 60 and over has grown rapidly throughout this century (see Table 1). Between 1950 and 2000, older adults in this state increased from 1.6 million to 4.7 million, an increase of 194 percent. This trend will continue as the cohort age 60 and over grows to 12.8 million by 2050, an increase of 172 percent from 2000.

Table 1
California Population Growth
Age 60 and Over
(in millions, rounded)

The largest growth rate will occur during the next 30 years as the Baby Boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, reach age 60. The first wave of Baby Boomers will turn 60 between 2000 and 2010, contributing to a 36 percent increase in California’s older adult population during this decade. By 2010, nearly 16 percent of Californians will be age 60 or older.

Table 2
Projected Growth in Population Age 60 and Over
2000-2040
By Age Groups


Age
Range
Total Population
(2000 Census)
Total Population
(2010 DoF Projections)
Total Population
(2040 DoF Projections)
Total Population Change

Percent
Change
60-64
1,146,841
1,944,211
2,579,283
1,432,442
125%
65-69
984,535
1,388,990
2,488,577
1,504,042
153%
70-74
903,288
1,033,176
2,286,549
1,383,261
153%
75-79
779,347
799,244
1,960,630
1,181,283
152%
80-84
502,831
615,927
1,430,462
927,631
184%
85+
425,657
629,241
1,297,890
872,233
205%
Totals
4,742,499
6,410,789
12,043,391
7,300,892
154%

Table 3
A Snapshot of Older Californians Age 65+ 2000

With high school diploma or higher1
70.1%
Limited English proficiency2
16.9%
Medi-Cal beneficiaries2
20%
Below poverty level2
8.1%
Poor or near poor (0-199% of poverty)2
28.6%
Homeowners5
74.5%
Living alone2
26%
Women age 65+ living alone6
31.4%
Living in a nursing home2
3.2%
Number of grandparents responsible for basic needs of grandchildren3
294,969
Proportion of Californians age 75 and older with a driver’s license4
59.6%
Percent with any disability2
42.2%

Table 4
California’s Projected Population Age 60+ as a Percent of Total Population by Race and Ethnicity

Racial/Ethnic Group
2005
2010
2020
2030
2040
White/Non-Hispanic
64.2%
60%
52.7%
44%
36.1%
Hispanic/Latino
16.6%
18.8%
23.5%
30%
37.5%
Asian
11.6%
13%
14%
15.6%
16.8%
Black/African American
5.5%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
5.3%
Multiracial
1.1%
1.3%
1.5%
1.6%
1.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native
0.7%
0.8%
1.2%
1.5%
1.8%
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance. Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 2000-2050, Sacramento, CA. May 2004.

In the late 1990s, California’s White, non-Latino population became a minority group for the first time since the 1849 Gold Rush. California’s older adults are and will continue to grow ethnically and culturally diverse. While 64 percent of older adults are White/non-Latino today, by 2040, the majority will be from groups now considered to be ethnic minorities.

Age Distribution in California

  • California’s anticipated population growth by 2020: 172 percent.
  • By 2020, the population of seniors age 85 and older is expected to increase by 200 percent.
  • In 2004, 5.1 million Californians were over age 60, representing 14.4 percent of the total 35.9 million state population. Of that number, 1.3 million were over age 75 and 500,000 were age 85 and over.
  • By 2050, life expectancy in California is expected to increase from 78.8 to 84.2.

Gender Demographics

  • Currently at and below age 45, males outnumber females by 5 percent. By age 65, females outnumber males by 40 percent and by three-to-one at age 90.
  • In 2004, the ratio of women over 60 to men over 60 was 128/100.
  • Older women are at increased risk of poverty, poor health, and social challenges due to their longer lifespan.
  • The gender gap is expected to decline by 2050, with the gap between men and women dropping to just 14 percent at age 65 and falling to 50 percent in Californians over 90.

Racial Demographics

  • In 2004, California’s minority population represented 35 percent of the state’s total.
  • With the growth anticipated by 2020, the largest change in the state’s aging ethnic population will be in the population of older Hispanic and Asian Americans.
  • A three-fold increase is anticipated by 2020 in the older Hispanic population, making this the largest ethnic group of California seniors.
  • Growth of the non-Hispanic white population is expected to increase by 50 percent.
  • A change of only 1 percent -- from 5 percent to 6 percent -- is projected in the population of non-English speaking seniors.

Income and Poverty Rates

  • The average income of elderly Californians is about $25,500.
  • U.S. natives living in California received approximately $6,000 more per year in income during 2000 than U.S. natives nationwide, and foreign-born Californians’ income was approximately $6,000 less than the national average.
  • California poverty rates are lower than in other states; however, poverty rates have increased since 1990 in all but the oldest cohort (those 85 and over).
  • Approximately 13 percent of California seniors were employed in 2003, with 20 percent of seniors’ incomes coming from their own earnings.
  • Many older Californians are expected to work beyond age 65 due to inadequate savings.
  • Social Security accounts for 28 percent of older Californians’ incomes.
  • Between 2020 and 2050, the percentage of older Californians with a higher education is expected to remain static, in contrast to an expected 20 percent to 24 percent increase in seniors without a high school diploma.

Health and Disability

  • Disability rates among older Californians and elders nationwide is decreasing.
  • Currently 17 percent of elders are unable to perform basic self-care functions; the number is expected to drop to 12 percent by 2030.

Housing Needs

  • In 2000, 58 percent of California’s seniors resided with a spouse, 25 percent lived alone, 14 percent lived in a family setting and 2.5 percent lived in a nursing facility.
  • 82 percent of elders living outside of an institution owned their own homes in 2000; 18 percent rented their homes.
  • Home ownership among the elderly is expected to rise from about 3 million to 9 million by 2050 in relation to the general population increase.
  • Nursing home occupancy is expected to double by 2050 (from 90,000 in 2000 to approximately 170,000).
Geographic Location
The Los Angeles Basin and the San Francisco Bay Area are now home to about two-thirds of the state’s older population and that will likely continue over the next 40 years. While every region, except the most rural areas of the state, is expected to experience strong growth in its 60+ population, the largest increases are predicted for the Los Angeles Basin and the San Joaquin Valley, where the number of older people is expected to almost triple by 2040.

Currently, the age dependency ratio does not vary much by region. The exception is the Sacramento Valley-North Coast-Mountain region, which has 25 seniors per 100 working-age adults compared to the state average of 18 per 100. By 2040, the rapidly aging Bay Area population is projected to become the oldest area of the state, with 41 older adults per 100 working-age adults.

Information derived from:
Strategic Plan for an Aging California Population; Getting Ready for the “Baby Boomers,” California Health and Human Service Agency, October 2003
California State Plan on Aging 2005-2006, California Health and Human Service Agency
Fault Lines in the Shifting Landscape; the Future of Growing Older in California-2010, Institute for the Future and the Archstone Foundation, November 1999
State Profiles, National Aging Program Information System, Administration on Aging

__________________________________________

PARENT EDUCATION


The goal of  the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child is to bring credible and accurate knowledge to bear on public decision-making that affects children's learning, behavior, and health.

The Council is committed to educating opinion leaders and decision makers about the relevance of neuroscience, developmental and behavioral research, and the economics of human capital formation for both public and private sector initiatives on behalf of young children and their families. 

The work of Frontiers of Innovation is guided by the theory that we must build the capabilities of adults caregivers in order to achieve significant outcomes for children.