The purpose of this data is to identify which school districts have publicized goals and investments towards environmental and climate action within their Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The data was collected in partnership with CalRecycle in order to aid in the implementation of the state’s environmental education strategy for elementary and secondary schools.
Overview to Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAP):
The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a three-year plan for local education agencies (LEA) to set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to meet local needs and improve student outcomes. Components of the LCAP include a local control for funding (LCFF) budget overview for parents, a plan summary, and goals and actions. California Education Code requires all LCAPs approved by the governing board or body of the local education agency to be posted prominently on the homepage of the LEA's website. (source: CDE)
Key Questions
Core Questions:
To what extent are districts including language related to environmental and climate action within their LCAP?
To what extent are districts allocating funding for environmental and climate action, as identified in their LCAP?
Additional Questions:
What are the characteristics of districts that incorporate sustainability in their LCAP (size, location, etc.)?
How much funding are districts allocating towards environmental and climate action in their LCAPs?
What are the types of initiatives related to environmental and climate action that are mentioned in district LCAPs?
Download a 2026 PDF report version of this page here:
Methodology:
Research methods for identifying funding sources for sustainability efforts and the presence of environmental visions or goals within the LCAP included a manual review of school district websites and other publicly available sources to locate the most current LCAP for each district. Once identified, documents were downloaded and analyzed for environmental language.
Students from the UC Berkeley Data Discovery Program were trained by Ten Strands staff to manually review the documents and search for key terms related to environmental and climate action, including, but not limited to, garden-based learning, environmental literacy, outdoor education, and sustainability.
Table of Contents:
Use the links below to jump to a specific section of the webpage.
Image credits: sengchoy
The data team identified through district websites the most recent LCAP publicly available for each of the state’s 938 school districts. Of the LCAPs found, ~76% were from 2025-26, ~ 21% were from 2024-25, and ~3% were from earlier years.
The LCAPs were then reviewed for key terms related to environmental and climate action, including, but not limited to: environmental literacy and curriculum, outdoor education, gardens, and sustainability. Through the key term search, the team determined if a school district mentioned an environmental vision and/or goals in its LCAP, and whether the district allocated funding for environmental and climate action in the LCAP.
The visualization to the right shows the total number and percentage of districts that include language related to an environmental vision and/or goals, as well as those that include allocations of funding for environmental and climate action.
The filter on the right titled "Select LCAP Focus Here" allows for toggling between districts identified as having environmental vision or goals in its LCAP and districts identified as having funds allocated towards environmental and climate action in its LCAP. Note that some districts include both environmental language and funding in their LCAP and will be counted on both charts.
It is important to note that if an LCAP does not include information on environmental and climate action, it does not necessarily mean that no such efforts are taking place in the district. School districts may be engaged in these initiatives but may not have them documented in their LCAP.
For districts that include environmental-related language in their LCAPs, there was variation in how it was expressed. The word cloud below highlights common keywords and phrases that were identified:
Key Takeaways:
About ~18% of school districts include a vision and/or goals related to environmental and climate action in their LCAP.
About ~12% of school districts include an allocation of funding for environmental and climate action in their LCAP.
The way environmental and climate action is referenced in LCAPs varies and may include initiatives such as gardens, outdoor education, and field trips.
In district LCAPs, the way that funding is allocated for environmental and climate action does not follow a consistent structure. When reviewing the LCAPs the data team found that some school districts included a section on environmental literacy that lists the exact amount of funding allocated for those efforts while others included environmental literacy within a broader category that lists a total funding amount but does not specify how much of that amount is specifically allocated to environmental efforts.
To account for these differences, reference to funding in the LCAPs was categorized in two ways:
Direct funding: the amount is explicitly allocated to environmental and climate action.
Lumped funding: environmental efforts are included within a broader category (such as science curriculum).
The map below shows the funding amounts districts have allocated toward environmental and climate action under these two designations.
When using the map below:
Zoom in on a County or District: Use the dropdown filters to select particular counties or districts.
Select LCAP Focus: Use the filter to switch between direct funding and lumped funding by selecting or deselecting the boxes.
Hover for More Data: Hover over a district on the map to see the amount of funding that has been allocated towards environmental and climate action.
Watch this video for how to use the LCAP dashboards ↓
lcap.mp4The interactive graph below shows the LCAP funding data organized by county.
When using the visualization below:
Filter by Funding Amount: Use the slider to view districts with funding in a particular range.
Zoom in on a County or District: Use the dropdown filters to select particular counties or districts.
Select LCAP Focus: Use dropdown filter switch between direct funding and lumped funding.
Hover for More Data: Hover over a district on the bar graphs to see a description of funding.
Note: Not all counties or districts appear in the bar charts in this section—only those with direct or lumped funding in their LCAP.
Key Takeaways:
About ~12% of school districts include an allocation of funding for environmental and climate action in their LCAP.
The amount of funding allocated towards environmental and climate action in the LCAPs varies widely from district to district.
It is difficult to assess the exact amount allocated towards these efforts when funding for environmental initiatives is lumped under broader categories in the LCAP.
Note: When direct funding amounts are listed, it is important to consider that in the context of the district’s overall budget to better understand the extent of investment in environmental action. Smaller school districts may have lower total funding amounts for environmental initiatives, but a higher percentage of their budget may allocated towards these efforts compared to larger districts, suggesting greater buy-in.
The size of districts in California varies greatly, with some districts serving fewer than 100 students and the largest district serving over 500,000 students. Because of this variability, it is essential to consider size as a driving factor when analysing implementation of initiatives across the state.
The following data shows the breakdown of the presence of environmental vision or goals and allocated funding based on school district enrollment sizes. School enrollment sizes are grouped into seven categories based on 2024-25 enrollment data from the California Department of Education (seen right).
The interactive visualization below shows the number and percentage of districts in each of these size categories with (green) and without (grey) language or allocated funding in their LCAPs.
When using the visualization below:
Select LCAP Focus: Use the dropdown box to flip between "Environmental Funding in LCAP" and "Environmental Vision or Goals in LCAP".
Hover for More Data: Hover over a bar to see data such as number and percentage of districts in that category.
Key Takeaways:
Environmental vision or goals and funding allocations are present in LCAPs across school districts of all different enrollment sizes, except the "Extremely Large" category. However, this does not indicate that these extremely large school districts are not taking environmental action; these efforts may just not be reflected in their LCAPs.
Environmental visions or goals have been identified in LCAPs of districts across nearly all enrollment size categories, with similar rates of inclusion - "Extremely Small" (~21%), "Very Small" (~18%), "Small" (~21%), "Medium" (~17%), and "Very Large" (~20%). Given these similar percentages, district size does not appear to be a driving factor in whether environmental visions or goals are incorporated into LCAPs.
Funding identification shows lower rates overall compared to vision or goals, but funding is still mentioned in the LCAPs of districts of all sizes, with the exception of "Extremely Large" districts - "Small" (~16%), "Very Small" (~11%), and "Extremely Small" (13%) districts have higher percentages of funding compared to "Very Large" (~5%), "Large" (~6%), and "Medium" (~10%) districts. The higher percentage of districts with funding in the smaller categories contradicts the stereotype that larger school districts have more resources and thus would be more likely to allocate funding for environmental initiatives. However, it remains inconclusive to what extent enrollment size influences the presence of environmental funding in LCAPs and what may be driving any trends.
School districts have been categorized by the Census Bureau into four locale classifications:
Urban
Suburban
Town
Rural
A breakdown of districts within these four locale classifications and how many have explicit vision or goals for environmental and climate initiatives, or allocated funding for environmental and climate action initiatives can be explored in the interactive map and figure below:
When using the dashboard below:
Select LCAP Focus: Use the dropdown box to flip between "Environmental Funding in LCAP" and "Environmental Vision or Goals in LCAP".
Hover for More Data: Hover over a district to see other data such as district name and locale classification for the map (left) and number of districts within the field and percent of districts within locale classification for the chart (right).
Key Takeaways:
All locale classifications include at least one district with environmental vision or goals in their LCAP. The suburban locale classification has the highest percentage of districts that mentioned an environmental vision or goals in their LCAP at ~23%. Rural (~19%) and urban (~16%) locale classifications have similar percentages od districts. The town locale classification has the lowest percentage of districts with environmental vision or goals in their LCAPs at ~12%.
All locale classifications also include at least one district that allocated funding towards environmental and climate action in their LCAP. However, the percentage of districts allocating funding is lower than the percentage that include environmental visions or goals across all locale classifications. Suburban locale classifications have the highest percentageof districts allocating funding, at ~14%. Rural (~12%) and urban (~11%) locale classifications have similar percentages. Town locale classifications continue to have the lowest percentage, with ~10% of districts mentioning funding towards environmental and climate action/literacy in their LCAPs.
Overall, while there are districts across all locale classifications include environmental goals or funding, a higher percentage of rural and suburban districts include environmental goals and funding than districts in town and urban areas. More research is needed to understand why these discrepancies among locale classifications exist.
There are eleven CA County Superintendent Regions which are primarily used by the CA County Superintendents (CCS - formerly CCESSA) and the staff that support them, including the Curricular and Improvement Support Committees (CISC). The counties belonging to each region can be observed in the map on the right.
Regions 9, 10, and 11 serve over half of the students in the state, with region 11 (comprising only one county - Los Angeles) serving almost a quarter of the students in the state.
The map and chart below illustrate the presence of allocated funding toward environmental and climate action and/or vision or goals mentioned in the district LCAPs across the eleven County Superintendent Regions.
When using the dashboard below:
Select LCAP Focus: Use the dropdown box to flip between "Environmental Funding in LCAP" and "Environmental Vision or Goals in LCAP".
Hover for More Data: Hover over a district to see other data such as district and CCESSA region name.
Key Takeaways:
Environmental vision or goals in LCAPs are present in at least one school district across all CA County Superintendent regions, but adoption is uneven.
The regions with the highest percentage of districts including an environmental vision or goals are:
Region 1 - North Coast (~29%)
Region 2 - North Eastern (~27%)
Region 4 - Bay (~27%)
Region 11 - Los Angeles (~28%)
The regions with the lowest percentage of districts including an environmental vision or goals are:
Region 3 - Capital Service Regional (~7%)
Region 7 - Central Valley (~9%)
Similar to environmental vision or goals, there are districts in all CA County Superintendent regions that have allocated funding for environmental initiatives in their LCAPs, though adoption is once again uneven across these regions.
Region 1 - North Coast (~22%) has the highest percentage of districts with funding for environmental and climate action.
Other regions that have higher percentages of districts with funding include:
Region 2 - North Eastern (~17%)
Region 4 - Bay (~17%)
Region 11 - Los Angeles (~14%)
Several regions have less than 10% of the school districts allocating funding, including:
Region 3 - Capital Service Regional (~3%)
Region 7 - Central Valley (~3%)
Region 9 - Southern (~8%)
Region 10 - Riverside, Inyo, Mono, San Bernardino [RIMS] (~5%)
Regions with low percentages of environmental vision or goals and allocated funding may provide insight into barriers to implementing environmental and climate action and highlight areas where additional support could be needed. The Capital Service and Central Valley regions show consistently low inclusion across both vision or goals and funding in contrast to the North Coast, North Eastern, Bay, and Los Angeles regions, which show higher inclusion across goals and funding. These geographic disparities point to potential differences in capacity, access to resources, or regional priorities; however, more research is needed to identify the cause of this trend.
Takeaway 1: Environmental Priorities are Beginning to be Integrated into District Planning and Funding Structures
Districts across California are including environmental vision and/or goals, as well as funding allocations in their LCAP. However, across the dataset, a consistent pattern emerges: districts are more likely to articulate environmental vision or goals in their LCAP, rather than to allocate funding.
About ~18% of school districts include a vision and/or goals related to environmental and climate action in their LCAP.
About ~12% of school districts include an allocation of funding for environmental and climate action in their LCAP.
This gap suggests that environmental and climate priorities are increasingly recognized conceptually, but are less consistently institutionalized through long-term planning and resource commitments.
Takeaway 2: Inclusion of Environmental LCAP Priorities is Uneven Across Districts
Environmental and climate priorities are included unevenly in LCAPs across districts (i.e. appearing with varying levels of depth, specificity, and funding commitment), indicating a lack of consistent structural guidance for implementation. Because there is no standardized expectation or framework for inclusion of environmental initiatives in LCAPs, references to environmental priorities range widely in specificity — from discrete program mentions (e.g., gardens or outdoor education) to explicit sustainability commitments. This variation underscores that the presence of environmental language alone should not be interpreted as evidence of deep implementation or long-term investment. And it points to a need for more consistent guidance or evaluative criteria when assessing district planning.
Takeaway 3: District Enrollment Size Is Not a Primary Driver of Environmental Inclusion in LCAPs
District enrollment size does not appear to be a primary driver of inclusion patterns, as most size categories show similar rates of adoption. However, the absence of environmental vision or funding among extremely large districts — despite their scale and potential influence — is notable. Additionally, the prominence of extremely small districts among those including environmental goals highlights that engagement is not strictly dependent on size or resource base. Overall, the data suggests only a modest decline in inclusion as enrollment increases, reinforcing that other contextual factors likely play a more significant role.
Takeaway 4: Geographic Patterns Show Uneven Adoption of Environmental Inclusion in LCAPs
Geographic patterns provide additional insight into uneven adoption. Districts classified as suburban show the highest rate of integration of both vision and funding, while town-designated districts demonstrate the lowest rates. Similarly, certain County Superintendent regions, particularly the Capital Service and Central Valley regions, show consistently low inclusion across both vision and goals, and funding. These geographic disparities point to potential differences in capacity, access to resources, or regional priorities, and may represent strategic opportunities for targeted guidance, support, and partnership development rather than simply descriptive variation.
Overall Takeaway: Taken together, these findings indicate that environmental and climate priorities within LCAPs (a fundamental district planning system) remain emerging and unevenly institutionalized across California. Strengthening clarity around expectations, supporting regions with lower adoption rates, and bridging the gap between stated priorities and long-term resources commitments, are all important opportunities for advancing systemic integration.
Acknowledgements
Ten Strands would like to thank CalRecycle for their partnership in the collection and analysis of this data as well as our student researchers from the UC Berkeley Data Discovery Program: Jesus Ochoa, Aniruthan Ravisankar, Ojas Sathaye, and Perseus Zhao.
To learn more about our partnership with CalRecycle, visit the Project Overview Page.
