‘Broader context’ for the county investments (Factor 1) refers to environmental and climate action indicators that are happening (or not happening) at the county jurisdictional level. For any given county, the purpose of including this data is to determine what role, if any, that these broader context factors may present as barriers or opportunities for school communities to take environmental action.
Video Overview of County Investments in Environmental and Climate Action
Key Questions
Overview to California Counties: California is organized into fifty-eight counties that are responsible for administering state-required programs and also handling local programs. Counties are political and administrative subdivisions of the state, created by the California Constitution and state law, and they act as the bridge between state government and local communities. At the county-level, the special districts for education are county offices of education (sometimes called county department of education, but on this page will be referred to as COEs).
California’s counties are politically, geographically, and demographically diverse, providing varied contexts within which the education system is operating. Explore the demographics of California counties here: County Contextual Factors. The summary of findings and analysis on this page will combine both indicators of action made by county governments, and by county offices of education.
Core Question: Which county jurisdictions are making investments in environmental and climate action, and which are not, AND how might these investments (broader context factors) serve as barriers or opportunities for schools within these jurisdictions to take environmental and climate action in their school communities?
Additional Questions:
Broader Context Indicators: What are indicators of environmental and climate action investments being made at the county (or sometimes the municipal level), and why might these indicators be seen as barriers or opportunities for schools/districts to take environmental and climate action?
County Broader Context: What environmental and climate action investments are being made by county-level public agencies (i.e. government, joint power authorities, County offices of Education (COE), etc.)? To what extent might these investments be correlated or connected to environmental and climate action by that county jurisdiction’s schools and districts?
In what areas is supportive context there, AND school districts ARE making significant investment? And why?
In what areas is supportive context there, BUT school districts ARE NOT making significant investment? And Why?
In what areas is supportive context NOT there, BUT school districts ARE making significant investment? And why?
In what areas is supportive context NOT there, AND school districts ARE NOT making significant investment?
Table of Contents:
This page is broken up into the following sections. Use the links to jump to a specific section of the report.
In order to more easily identify and communicate trends in the environmental sustainability and/or climate action investments made at the County Level, the CA County Environmental and Climate Action Supportive Context Indicator Tracking System was created. The Supportive Context is based on a number of indicators at the general county level (such as within government and industry) and at County Offices of Education that could possibly lead to a more supportive environment for districts and schools to take environmental and climate action themselves.
The image above shows the indicators that were tracked for the purpose of this data initiative. More details about these indicators can be found in the General County Investments and County Office of Education Investments pages.
The map below shows the overall supportive context status for each of the 58 counties in California. Counties that show evidence of more environmental and climate action indicators are shown in blue, potentially indicating a more supportive context for schools. Counties with fewer indicators of environmental and climate action are shown in magenta, potentially indicating a less supportive context.
The dropdown and sliding filters to the right of the map can be used to determine which indicators are present in each county. Hovering over a county on the map will show the status.
Key Takeaways: The more costal and urban counties generally show more indicators of Environmental and Climate Investments compared to the more inland and rural counties. However, there are counties within more rural areas of California and within central California that are making investments in environmental and climate action.
Some demographics have some effect on some subset of counties regarding whether or not we are seeing evidence of county investments in environmental and climate action. This seems most relevant to county government investments, but it also has some impact on county office of education investments, specifically policy. On the whole it appears that demographics have a smaller effect than most might think, which means that demographics should not be holding any community back. However, it appears that demographics should be taken into account when considering strategies that will be most effective in specific contexts.
The graph below shows the breakdown in score for each county with County Office of Education (COE) Investments shown in blue and general county indicators shown in orange. The region filter to the right narrows down the graph for easier viewing. Hovering over the bars shows the county name and score breakdown.
Key Takeaways:
From the breakdown, we can see that many of the COEs with higher overall status are in counties with more county government investments as well. This may be due in part to the political, demographic, and financial factors addressed above since most of the counties with less evidence of investment overall are classified as rural, have a population less than two hundred thousand, and had over 50 percent of the population vote Republican in 2024.
However, there are some COEs that are showing significant investments even though their county government is not showing evidence of environmental and climate action, and they are within what may be considered a political, demographic, and financial context (such as San Joaquin County).
The reverse is also true, where there are multiple COEs that do not have as much evidence of investment even though the county government is showing higher levels of investment in environmental and climate action, and they are in what may be considered a political, demographic, and financial context (such as Sonoma County and Alameda County).
The heatmap below shows how investment at the county government level compares with investment at the COE level. In the heat map, the rows represent COE investments, while the columns represent county investments. The color intensity of each cell indicates how often that pairing occurs across counties, based on the count value. Darker blue shows that more counties have both investments, while the lighter blue or white indicates fewer or no counties with that overlap.
Key Takeaways:
We can see that the majority of the overlap happens in COE board policies and other county government investments, as well as COE environmental action projects. In the other categories, there does not appear to be substantial overlap or a high number of investments from either county governments or COEs. However, a pattern emerges showing that COE investments tend to occur more often in counties that already have broader environmental or sustainability investments. For example, for the Environmental and/or Climate Literacy Staff category, all seven counties with such a coordinator also have a sustainability plan, a greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, some type of environmental plan, and a climate action plan.
This suggests that COE investments may build upon or align with existing county-level environmental efforts rather than emerging in isolation. In contrast, county investments do not appear to coincide with COE initiatives as consistently, meaning the number of overlaps may be limited by whether or not a county has made direct investments in COE-related initiatives. In other words, COEs may be more responsive or complementary to county action, whereas county-level investments occur more independently and are not always matched by corresponding COE engagement.
This indicates that simply having investments, plans, or commitments at the county government level do not guarantee that county offices of education will follow suit. Similarly, COEs have the ability to invest in environmental and climate action without the support of commitments at the county government.
The variety in context in which county governments and the formal education system function can potentially influence the way environmental and climate action unfolds and the way that this work is communicated; however, based on the lack of clear correlation between county government investments, COE investments, and political, demographic, and financial factors, it is likely that there are other factors not captured within this dataset that contribute to these trends. More research is needed to fully understand the levers of change at the county level. Nonetheless, when considering strategies for how county agencies might support school districts, it is important to keep in mind how these differences might impact the effectiveness of different types of strategies.
The purpose of this section is to explore if there is a relationship between any county investment (county government or county office of education) and the districts and schools in the field taking action. One assumption is that school districts in counties where there is more county-level investment in environmental and climate action would be more likely to show evidence of action themselves due to the “supportive” county context. However, there has not been a robust enough dataset on the district side to make a valid comparison. Now that the data initiative has completed the initial scrape of district-level indicators of environmental and climate action, this initial analysis aims to inform what strategies and investments can best catalyze action in our districts and schools.
The graph below shows the average District-Level Environmental and Climate Action score on the y-axis and the Overall County Supportive Context Score on the x-axis. Each county is shown as a bubble with the size of the bubble indicating the number of districts within that county. The number of districts within a county impacts have much each district's score affects the county average. The colors represent the regions in the state (see the map to the right of the graph). Clicking on the color next to the number in the region key will highlight that region's counties on the graph allowing trends to be seen statewide or within regions. Click on the color again to deselect the region.
CA County Superintendent Regions
Key Takeaways:
When looking at the average overall environmental and climate indicator status for the districts in each county versus the overall investment status (county government or county office of education), there was not a strong correlation. In the visualization below, it is clear that while there is a slight upward trend, it is not significant. Similar to the findings in section 1, we do see an encouraging distribution of regions (shown by the color of the bubbles in the chart) indicating that environmental and climate action at both the district and county levels is not constrained to one geographic part of California.
Because of the complex nature of the variables at both the district and county levels and potentially confounding effects, we also used a model to estimate how specific county government and county office of education (COE) investments relate to district-level environmental indicator outcomes. While county-level and COE investments represent important efforts to promote sustainability, the model results show that district-level demographic and structural characteristics explain far more of the variance in environmental performance. For more on these district-level effects, see our statewide report on demographics and environmental outcomes.
Across all county- and COE-level investment variables, none show a meaningful or credible effect on district outcomes.
While there may be factors at the county level that contribute to movement toward environmental and climate action at the district level, at this time we do not have enough data to show quantitative assessment and outcomes about which investments have the most leverage for driving change. More data is needed, especially data that is granular enough to check specific COE initiatives paired with change over time in the school districts they serve.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Across California, a movement for environmental and climate action in education is taking root. It has grown within the broader context of county regions and is now taking shape in school districts and classrooms. This report provides an early look at how county-level investments are emerging and what they mean for schools. The data is imperfect, and we know we are only at the beginning of this story. But the momentum that has started to take hold is promising.
County leaders are learning how to “lead from the middle” by experimenting with new staffing models, policies, partnerships, and programs that embed sustainability and climate resilience into local systems. In turn, districts and schools are beginning to act—adopting policies, forming green teams, integrating environmental literacy, and empowering youth leadership.
While there is not yet a clear roadmap or a set of boxes to check that guarantees specific outcomes, the stories from the field tell us something important: Support and relationships at the county level can make a difference. Counties that invest in people and partnerships are able to help schools move further and faster. At the same time, local leadership can and does emerge anywhere—even in counties with minimal supportive context—proving that meaningful action is possible in any context.
This report captures both the data and the ground-level stories that together mark the beginning of a growing movement. California’s counties and county offices of education (COEs) are laying the foundation for what could become a defining model of accelerating environmental and climate action in education: one built on collaboration, adaptability, and the shared commitment to prepare every student to thrive in an environmentally sustainable and resilient future.
