In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced the elimination of $350 million in funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), arguing that the grants are "discriminatory" because they restrict eligibility to institutions that meet “government-mandated racial quotas.” Months later, Congress passed, and President Trump later signed, a federal spending deal that maintains funding for Title V and Part A of Title III, the very programs that support HSIs. Yet rather than providing relief, this action has created significant confusion for California Community Colleges. 

This system-wide crisis placed more than 1 million California Community Colleges students and approximately $20 million in HSI funding at risk, as over 90% of California's 116 community colleges are designated HSIs. 

HSIs are colleges with an undergraduate Latino enrollment of at least 25%, and at least 50% of their students must be low-income. According to 2023-24 data from the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), California has the most HSIs of any state, serving more than 1.8 million students. HSI designation allows colleges to apply for competitive federal grants that fund student support programs such as tutoring, academic advising, mentorship, transfer and career counseling, and faculty training.

In response to the loss of federal funding, California enacted AB 123, which established the Student Support Block Grant to help bridge the gap.  This one-time $60 million grant, appropriated from Proposition 98 general funds, will allow colleges to continue providing assistance for food, housing, transportation, childcare, mental health services, and other basic needs. Block grant payments begin in February 2026, with a spending deadline of June 30, 2029. 

While Congress’s decision to maintain federal Title V funding offers cautious hope, California colleges remain in limbo. These are discretionary grants, meaning that the Department of Education decides whether to hold competitions and distribute the funds. While the funds are now appropriated, will they be distributed? 

This uncertainty makes the approach at Santiago Canyon College (SCC) worth examining.  SCC’s experience demonstrates that surviving these cuts requires more than replacement funding; it demands a fundamental rethinking of how to sustain student support programs relying less on grant chasing and more on integration. Serving approximately 17,000 students in Orange County with a 58% Hispanic enrollment, SCC’s approach offers a model for colleges statewide navigating this transition.

The Rancho Santiago Community College district has been awarded $1,616,791 of the Student Support Block grant allocation. SCC’s President, Jeannie Kim, explains that SCC will receive approximately $468,869, which is 29% of the district’s Budget Allocation Model (BAM).  While significant, this award is only a partial replacement for federal funding lost. 

Rather than simply seeking replacement dollars, SCC has embraced a philosophy of “institutionalizing” programs funded by temporary grants. “Despite the loss of federal funds, SCC plans to continue the work by institutionalizing what has been made possible thus far,” President Kim explains. This means integrating programs such as Nuestro Lugar, which offers counseling, peer mentorship and support, and other services into the college’s equity plan as permanent institutional commitments rather than grant-dependent initiatives. 

This approach reflects a fundamental shift in thinking, viewing federal grants as seed funding for programs that prove their value and earn permanent institutional support, rather than perpetually chasing the next grant cycle. 

SCC’s sustainability strategy does not rely solely on the block grant. President Kim explains that the college remains “committed to continuing the budget conversations through participatory governance processes, including reviewing categorical funds like Student Equity and Achievement Program (SEAP), Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), Strong Workforce Program (SWP), and California Adult Education Program (CAEP) funds that support personnel and programs”.  In addition, SCC remains “actively involved in federal advocacy efforts to regain lost federal dollars,” leveraging connections with education associations and elected representatives to make the case for restoring HSI funding. President Kim explains that “while the block grant does not fully bridge the gap of federal dollars lost, SCC is optimistic about developing a sustainable plan despite budget difficulties.”

The question facing SCC, and colleges statewide, extends beyond 2029, when the state block grant expires. 

SCC’s approach provides a path forward by promoting institutionalization, protecting core students’ services, and offering a sustainable model that other colleges can adapt.

Even as Congress has restored funding on paper, the gap of appropriation and distribution leaves a high level of uncertainty.  The path forward requires action on two fronts: First, as colleges prepare to apply for HSI grants this summer, faculty, administrators, and students must pressure both state and federal legislators to ensure that the federally appropriated funds are distributed.  Second, colleges must view this moment as an opportunity to continue to rethink sustainability by integrating student support into college programs and reducing their reliance on grant funding in ways that reflect a commitment to students well beyond the block grant’s 2029 expiration. 

Moving forward, FACCC members have a crucial role to play in turning commitment into action across California’s community colleges.  Decisions made by budget committees, task forces, and governance councils over the next few months are critical to providing support services for years to come.  Faculty, including part-time, must not be bystanders in this crisis.  California's future continues to depend on those advocates, the governance voice to bring change and commitment. Are you ready to become a FACCCtivist? 

 FACCC blog posts are written independently by FACCC members and reflect their experiences and recommendations. FACCC neither condemns nor endorses the recommendations herein and has not taken a position on the proposed revision discussed in this post.