AB 2374 creates a formal California designation — “California Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions” — and a new governing board to award it. Institutions apply with a mission certification, data on student outcomes, and a five-year strategic plan that specifies goals for retention, time-to-degree or certificate, graduation, equity gap reduction, and resource allocations.
The bill matters because it builds an accountability and recognition structure focused on Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander (AAPI) student outcomes without attaching explicit funding. Colleges and universities will need to collect and report multi-year outcome data, adopt measurable equity goals, and demonstrate plans for culturally relevant supports — all reviewed by a politically appointed eight-member board that votes by two-thirds to approve designations.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB 2374 establishes a state designation for institutions that commit to improving AAPI student outcomes, requires initial and renewal applications with strategic plans and outcome data, and sets five-year designation terms. A newly created governing board evaluates applications and approves awards by a two-thirds vote.
Who It Affects
All California public and private four-year colleges and community college campuses that wish to seek the designation; higher-education administrators responsible for student success, institutional research, and diversity/equity initiatives; and the managing entity designated to deliver applications to the governing board.
Why It Matters
The bill creates a statewide pathway to highlight institutions focused on AAPI student success and formalizes metrics-driven expectations for outreach, culturally relevant professional development, and resource allocation. Because the law prescribes reporting and planning but includes no funding language, it shifts the compliance and implementation burden onto campuses and the governing infrastructure.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2374 sets up a voluntary designation to recognize colleges and universities that commit to improving academic outcomes for Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students. To receive an initial designation, an institution must submit an application to the managing entity by its deadline, post the application on its website, and include a written certification from its chief administrative officer affirming a mission-aligned commitment.
The application must contain measurable academic goals and academic equity goals for a five-year window, a strategic plan describing outreach and student supports (including examples like affinity centers or corequisite supports), and an outline of planned resource allocation and culturally relevant professional development for faculty and staff.
The bill differentiates data requirements by institutional type. Four-year institutions must provide graduation, retention, yield, and time-to-degree data for the prior three academic years on normal-time and up to 150 percent of normal-time completion.
Community college campuses must submit either degree/certificate completions or transfer-rate data for the prior three academic years. Renewals require resubmission of the prior application, demonstrations of progress on goals and plan implementation, updates to mission or campus resource descriptions if relevant, a new five-year set of goals, and historical data covering the prior five academic years (again differentiated by four-year vs community college metrics).
If a renewal is denied, an institution may only apply again as an initial applicant unless it first secures a subsequent initial designation.A new governing board composed of eight members — including the Lieutenant Governor (or designee), two public appointees from legislative leaders, designees from UC, CSU, CCC, and the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, plus the chair of the AAPI Legislative Caucus (or designee) — will review applications presented by the managing entity. The board must convene at least twice a year, operate under the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and approve or deny applications by a two-thirds vote of members present.
The statute leaves several operational details to the managing entity and the board, including application deadlines, review procedures, and any standards the board will use to judge whether submitted strategic plans and data demonstrate sufficient commitment and progress.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The governing board must approve designation awards by a two-thirds vote of members present, and it must convene at least twice a year to act on applications.
Initial and renewal designations each last five academic years; renewals require resubmitting prior applications plus five years of outcome data and demonstrations of progress.
Initial applications must include a chief executive’s written certification, measurable academic and equity goals, a five-year strategic plan with resource-allocation details, and plans for culturally relevant faculty/staff professional development.
Data requirements differ by sector: four-year applicants submit three years (initial) or five years (renewal) of graduation, retention, yield, and time-to-degree measures (including up to 150% time); community college campuses submit completions or transfer rates for those periods.
Applicants must post their submitted application on the institution’s public website, and if a renewal application is denied the only immediate option is to reapply as an initial applicant.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Establishes the designation and term length
These subsections create the formal ‘California Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions’ label and specify that initial and renewal designations are valid for five academic years. Practically, that creates recurring compliance and planning cycles every five years, requiring campuses to prepare substantive strategic documents and performance data on a predictable schedule.
Eligibility and required components of initial applications
This portion sets the gateway criteria: timely submission to the managing entity, compliance with the initial-application checklist, and public posting of the application. The statute spells out the core elements — mission-aligned certification by the chief administrative officer, measurable academic and equity goals tied to three years of outcome data, a five-year strategic plan (with outreach, student supports, resource allocation, and culturally relevant PD), and a description of campus equity resources — giving clear expectations of what a competitive application must contain even though it stops short of numeric thresholds.
Renewal application obligations and progress demonstrations
Renewals require either resubmitting the application that secured the prior designation or the last renewal application, plus demonstrations of progress on the stated goals and strategic plan. Renewing campuses must provide five years of historical data, updated goals for the next five-year term, and written certification from the chief administrative officer. The statute thus ties continued recognition to demonstrable improvement rather than mere maintenance of prior paperwork.
Denials, reapplication pathway, and senate consultation
If the governing board denies a renewal, the campus may not immediately submit another renewal application — it can only apply as an initial applicant unless it first obtains a subsequent initial designation. The bill also encourages consultation with a campus academic senate on applications, which inserts shared governance into the preparation process but does not make senate sign-off mandatory.
Governing board composition, voting rules, meetings, and transparency
This section creates an eight-member board: the Lieutenant Governor (or designee), two public appointees from legislative leaders, designees from UC, CSU, CCC, a designee from the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, and the AAPI Legislative Caucus chair (or designee). The board must meet at least twice yearly, decide applications presented by the managing entity, and require a two-thirds vote of members present for any decision; it is subject to Bagley-Keene open-meeting requirements. Those composition and voting rules concentrate decision power with a mix of elected officials’ appointees and system designees and build transparency via open meetings, but they leave the board to define substantive approval standards.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander students — The designation incentivizes campus investments in outreach, culturally relevant supports, and targeted initiatives designed to raise retention, completion, and transfer outcomes for AAPI students.
- Institutions with existing AAPI-focused programs — Colleges that already maintain affinity centers, culturally competent PD, and disaggregated outcome tracking stand to gain public recognition that can amplify recruiting and reputational advantages.
- Community college campuses prioritizing transfer and completion — The statute explicitly allows campuses to use transfer or completion metrics, drawing attention to community-college pathways and potentially strengthening transfer-support programming.
- AAPI-focused advocates and the AAPI Legislative Caucus — The designation creates a formal mechanism to elevate AAPI student success in state policy discussions and a venue (the governing board) where AAPI priorities have a designated voice.
Who Bears the Cost
- Colleges and community college campuses — Institutions must compile multi-year outcome data, develop measurable five-year strategic plans with detailed resource allocations, post applications publicly, and possibly reconfigure services; those tasks consume institutional research, administrative, and programmatic resources.
- Smaller or under-resourced campuses — Campuses lacking staff for data disaggregation, strategic planning, or culturally relevant PD may face steeper relative costs to prepare competitive applications and implement required changes.
- The managing entity and governing board — The statute creates ongoing administrative responsibility (application management, review cycles, public meetings) without specifying funding, so those entities will carry operational burdens unless supported by appropriations.
- State oversight and policymakers — Because approvals require a supermajority and include politically appointed slots, legislators and executive designees may incur political and administrative costs defending decisions or responding to appeals and public scrutiny.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 2374 balances two legitimate aims that pull in opposite directions: it seeks to create meaningful, measurable incentives for campuses to improve AAPI student outcomes, but it does so without prescribing funding, numeric eligibility criteria, or a standardized approval framework — raising the risk that the designation will either become a paper entitlement for well-resourced institutions or an exclusionary bar that penalizes smaller, under-resourced campuses that most need support.
The statute sets substantive expectations (goals, plans, data submission) but omits several critical operational details that will shape outcomes. The bill does not specify numeric eligibility thresholds (for example, a minimum percentage or headcount of AAPI students), nor does it define the approval criteria the governing board must apply beyond a two-thirds vote.
That leaves significant discretion to the board and the managing entity to establish standards and could produce uneven application of the designation across similar institutions.
Funding and capacity present another unresolved issue. The law requires campuses to allocate resources and provide culturally relevant professional development, but it contains no appropriation or grant program to underwrite these investments.
Institutions with thin budgets could struggle to meet their own strategic-plan commitments, undermining the credibility of the designation. Data requirements raise technical and privacy questions: AAPI population heterogeneity means aggregate metrics can obscure subgroup disparities, and small cell sizes at some campuses may trigger privacy constraints that complicate reporting.
Finally, the two-thirds voting rule and the mix of political and system designees create a risk that decisions will reflect political considerations rather than consistent technical standards, particularly given the bill’s silence on the board’s review rubric.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.