Zoey Freedman: Increase in Cal Grant funding should be reserved for housing

More money for the University of California doesn’t mean students are going to be living any more comfortably.

If the proposed California state budget for the 2016-2017 fiscal year is approved, the UC is set to receive 4.7 percent more funding than last year, including an additional $2.1 billion through the Cal Grant program. The Cal Grant comprises 43 percent of total student financial aid needed to cover tuition costs. Ultimately, if this increase goes through, 14 percent more students will be able to receive a Cal Grant in order to pay for school.

There are three different types of Cal Grants: Cal Grant A, Cal Grant B and Cal Grant C. Although Cal Grant A generally awards the most money, the money can only be allocated towards tuition costs whereas Cal Grant B and C, although smaller sums, can be used to pay for housing, books and other costs outside of tuition.

While it is important that Cal Grant A remains large so low-income students can afford tuition, it is equally important for Cal Grants B and C to be well-funded so students can afford to live at or around the university they’re attending. And, for the most part, the price of these housing options is extremely high and options are limited.

Even though this increase in Cal Grant money could allow more students to afford tuition at the UC, it doesn’t ensure affordable housing or food for UC students. It would be most beneficial if a portion of the 14 percent increase for Cal Grants funding was guaranteed to be directed specifically towards grants B and C in order to ensure both housing and tuition remain affordable for students with the most need.

When the proposed state budget is revised, Governor Jerry Brown needs to make a stipulation that requires a portion of the allocated Cal Grant money to be used on Cal Grant B and C in order to ensure housing affordability for at least a portion of UC students.

Though the UC has already promised to not increase tuition fees for the next two years for resident students, there’s no guarantee on how much housing costs will increase in the neighborhoods surrounding UC campuses. Although tuition is ultimately the same across the UC campuses, costing roughly $13,200, and has been promised to not change, housing prices vary greatly and are not guaranteed to remain stable.

UCLA in particular is located in an extremely desirable part of Los Angeles making housing already limited, competitive and pricey.

With the proposal for the UC to increase enrollment numbers systemwide and with UCLA already being the most applied to of the UCs, the demand for housing is more than likely to increase, encouraging the prices to become even worse.

On-campus housing is estimated to cost $14,904 and off-campus housing is estimated to cost $10,239. On top of these costs, books and course readers can also end up costing hundreds of dollars each quarter and food can cost several hundred a month as well.

Though tuition is costly, making scholarships and even loans necessary for many students to pay their way through college, covering housing and food costs is just as important and just as burdensome.

UC enrollment is planned to expand by 10,000 students over the next three years. If disbursed evenly systemwide, UCLA will receive roughly 1,000 more students over the next several years. This is problematic as housing both in the apartments directly off-campus and on-campus housing are already packed. This only means prices are bound to increase as the demand for a limited number of spots rapidly climbs.

To compensate, the double dormitory rooms on the Hill may need to be made into triples. Those students who want to live in the apartments in North Village may need to start squeezing more people into their apartments if they want to find a place to live. While demand goes up, prices are also going up, but quality of housing is declining – even without the influx of new students.

Brown needs to realize that without his intervention and specification on where exactly these Cal Grant funds should go, there’s no guarantee UC students will be living comfortably.

A small reduction in the awards offered through Cal Grant A in order to better fund Cal Grants B and C, although seemingly unfair, is not. Without proper, affordable housing, many low-income students would not be able to physically make it to the UC in time for class, or at all. If students can’t actually make it to their classes, tuition affordability is irrelevant.

Directing more money towards Cal Grants B and C rather than focusing increasing the number of students receiving aid would allow students in need to actually afford the cost of UCLA housing and living while still affording tuition costs as well.

At UCLA, housing is already cramped and overpriced. Despite budget increases, the impending enrollment expansion poses a huge threat to students who already struggle to find and afford housing close to school. Although the enrollment increase aims to benefit California residents, no one will benefit unless housing options and housing prices also reflect the budget increases and begin to compensate both existing students and the future thousands.