How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The process to hire a new chancellor of the Yuba Community College District is underway.
The district, which includes Woodland Community College and its Lake County campus in Clearlake, is seeking a permanent chancellor to succeed Dr. Douglas B. Houston, who left the college last year.
Since July 1, 2021, Dr. James L.J. Houpis has served as interim chancellor.
Documents for the district board’s meeting last Thursday, Nov. 10, explained that the governing board approved the chancellor’s job announcement at its July 14 meeting.
It was developed based on a districtwide survey conducted in September 2021.
At the board’s meeting last week, board Vice President Juan Delgado reported that the search committee met again recently to review applicants.
The committee will meet again to review the first round of applicants on Dec. 5, he said. At that point, committee members also will review potential questions in order to prepare for the interviews.
Delgado said the search committee will begin reviewing applications at the end of January.
The district is accepting applications until Jan. 16. The initial screening of applicants will take place on Jan. 20.
At staff’s suggestion, the board approved the revised chancellor job announcement as presented with a unanimous vote.
More information is available on the chancellor’s search page.
Email Elizabeth Larson atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
The district, which includes Woodland Community College and its Lake County campus in Clearlake, is seeking a permanent chancellor to succeed Dr. Douglas B. Houston, who left the college last year.
Since July 1, 2021, Dr. James L.J. Houpis has served as interim chancellor.
Documents for the district board’s meeting last Thursday, Nov. 10, explained that the governing board approved the chancellor’s job announcement at its July 14 meeting.
It was developed based on a districtwide survey conducted in September 2021.
At the board’s meeting last week, board Vice President Juan Delgado reported that the search committee met again recently to review applicants.
The committee will meet again to review the first round of applicants on Dec. 5, he said. At that point, committee members also will review potential questions in order to prepare for the interviews.
Delgado said the search committee will begin reviewing applications at the end of January.
The district is accepting applications until Jan. 16. The initial screening of applicants will take place on Jan. 20.
At staff’s suggestion, the board approved the revised chancellor job announcement as presented with a unanimous vote.
More information is available on the chancellor’s search page.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
One of Lake County’s members of Congress reported he has tested positive for COVID-19.
Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-05) revealed his diagnosis on Wednesday.
“After taking a regular PCR test, I have tested positive for COVID-19,” he said in the Wednesday statement.
“Thanks to being fully vaccinated and receiving both booster shots, I am experiencing only mild symptoms. I will be working from home and my office remains fully open to serve the people of our district,” Thompson said.
“As COVID-19 continues to evolve, I recommend every American to get their updated COVID-19 vaccine and booster to stay healthy and protect their friends and families,” he added.
Thompson currently represents California’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes all or part of Contra Costa, Lake, Napa, Solano and Sonoma counties.
Last week, Thompson was elected to the newly redrawn Fourth Congressional District, which will include all of Lake County, rather than just the county’s southern half, as his current district does.
On Wednesday, the California Air Resources Board released its updated proposal to implement the most ambitious climate action of any jurisdiction in the world, taking unprecedented steps to drastically slash pollution and accelerate the transition to clean energy.
State officials said no economy in the world, much less the soon-to-be fourth largest, has put forth such a comprehensive roadmap to reach carbon neutrality.
This updated plan follows Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to move faster to achieve new, ambitious climate goals, setting new targets for renewable energy, clean buildings, carbon removal, and clean fuels in the transportation sector.
If adopted by the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, this plan will be a critical component of Gov. Newsom’s California Climate Commitment — a set of world-leading actions to build out a 100% clean energy grid, achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, ramp up carbon removal and sequestration, protect Californians from harmful oil drilling, and invest $54 billion to forge an oil-free future while building sustainable communities throughout the state.
The updated Scoping Plan would achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in addition to:
• Cutting air pollution by 71%.
• Slashing greenhouse gas emissions 85% by 2045: That includes a 48% reduction of greenhouse gasses by 2030, surpassing the statutory mandate to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels in 2030;
• Reducing fossil fuel consumption to less than one-tenth of what we use today, a 94% drop in demand for oil and 86% drop in demand for all fossil fuels.
• Creating four million new jobs.
• Saving Californians $200 billion in health costs due to pollution.
“California is drastically cutting our dependence on fossil fuels and cleaning our air — this plan is a comprehensive roadmap to achieve a pollution-free future,” said Gov. Newsom. “It’s the most ambitious set of climate goals of any jurisdiction in the world, and if adopted, it’ll spur an economic transformation akin to the industrial revolution. While big polluters focus on increasing their profits at our expense, California is protecting communities, creating jobs and accelerating our transition to clean energy.”
The plan would also raise the stakes for clean energy and climate resiliency, calling for:
• At least 20 GW offshore wind capacity built by 2045;
• 3 million climate-friendly homes by 2030 and 7 million by 2035;
• 6 million heat pumps deployed by 2030;
• Carbon removal/capture targets of 20 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) by 2030 and 100 MMTCO2e by 2045;
• Achieve 20% non-combustion in the aviation sector by 2045, with the remaining demand met with sustainable aviation fuel;
• Light-duty vehicle miles traveled target of 25% per capita below 1990 levels by 2030 and 30% per capita below 1990 levels by 2045.
Wednesday’s release follows the latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, showing that 2020 had the steepest recorded drop in pollution in California history due to the pandemic, and including updated data showing California reached its 2020 climate targets six years ahead of schedule in 2014 rather than the initially estimated four.
State officials said no economy in the world, much less the soon-to-be fourth largest, has put forth such a comprehensive roadmap to reach carbon neutrality.
This updated plan follows Gov. Gavin Newsom’s push to move faster to achieve new, ambitious climate goals, setting new targets for renewable energy, clean buildings, carbon removal, and clean fuels in the transportation sector.
If adopted by the California Air Resources Board, or CARB, this plan will be a critical component of Gov. Newsom’s California Climate Commitment — a set of world-leading actions to build out a 100% clean energy grid, achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, ramp up carbon removal and sequestration, protect Californians from harmful oil drilling, and invest $54 billion to forge an oil-free future while building sustainable communities throughout the state.
The updated Scoping Plan would achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, in addition to:
• Cutting air pollution by 71%.
• Slashing greenhouse gas emissions 85% by 2045: That includes a 48% reduction of greenhouse gasses by 2030, surpassing the statutory mandate to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels in 2030;
• Reducing fossil fuel consumption to less than one-tenth of what we use today, a 94% drop in demand for oil and 86% drop in demand for all fossil fuels.
• Creating four million new jobs.
• Saving Californians $200 billion in health costs due to pollution.
“California is drastically cutting our dependence on fossil fuels and cleaning our air — this plan is a comprehensive roadmap to achieve a pollution-free future,” said Gov. Newsom. “It’s the most ambitious set of climate goals of any jurisdiction in the world, and if adopted, it’ll spur an economic transformation akin to the industrial revolution. While big polluters focus on increasing their profits at our expense, California is protecting communities, creating jobs and accelerating our transition to clean energy.”
The plan would also raise the stakes for clean energy and climate resiliency, calling for:
• At least 20 GW offshore wind capacity built by 2045;
• 3 million climate-friendly homes by 2030 and 7 million by 2035;
• 6 million heat pumps deployed by 2030;
• Carbon removal/capture targets of 20 million metric tons CO2 equivalent (MMTCO2e) by 2030 and 100 MMTCO2e by 2045;
• Achieve 20% non-combustion in the aviation sector by 2045, with the remaining demand met with sustainable aviation fuel;
• Light-duty vehicle miles traveled target of 25% per capita below 1990 levels by 2030 and 30% per capita below 1990 levels by 2045.
Wednesday’s release follows the latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, showing that 2020 had the steepest recorded drop in pollution in California history due to the pandemic, and including updated data showing California reached its 2020 climate targets six years ahead of schedule in 2014 rather than the initially estimated four.
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — At the end of its third appearance before the Lakeport City Council, a new housing development that will make up the next phase in the Parkside Subdivision next to Westside Community Park received the go ahead.
Peter Schellinger of Waterstone Residential received a 3-1 vote from the council, with Councilman Michael Froio voting no due to concerns about the project’s potential effect on the residents of the existing homes at Parkside Subdivision.
Schellinger’s Parkside Residential Project at build out will include 128 new apartment units and 48 cluster homes on the 15.16-acre property at 1310 Craig Ave.
It’s on a portion of the 96-lot Schellinger Subdivision, approved in three phases in 2005. The first phase consisted of 31 lots, where 17 homes were built by Schellinger Brothers, Peter Schellinger’s father and uncle.
Community Development Director Jenni Byers, who noted the City Council had seen the project twice before, said it had been revised to focus on converting 3.42 acres of the property from R-1, or low density residential, to R-3, high density residential.
The council’s action on Tuesday clears the way for Schellinger to move forward with building a 64-unit apartment community in the project’s southern phase. Waterstone will separately seek approval for a tentative parcel map creating four separate parcels for the entire project site, including the other 64 apartments and the 48 cluster homes, meant to be middle market housing.
Schellinger told the council he planned to come back in early 2023 to seek the approvals for the cluster homes. He anticipates that he would start work on building those cluster homes during the 16 to 18 months it would take to build the first 64 apartments.
Byers said California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued guidance to local governments in October regarding mitigating wildfire risk from proposed developments in fire-prone areas.
That guidance focuses on areas including project density, project location, water supply and infrastructure, evacuation and emergency access, and fire hardening structures and homes.
Byers said that the project location is outside of the wildland urban interface and based on Bonta’s guidelines, it’s an appropriate building site.
In August, the Lakeport Planning Commission discussed the project and recommended the council’s approval of it.
The Lakeport City Council heard it first in September, at which time the council approved introducing its zone change ordinance and scheduled a public hearing for Sept. 20 for the ordinance and adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and general plan amendment Schellinger was seeking.
The council took that action after hearing from the neighbors at the Parkside Subdivision, who brought up concerns including traffic, noise, a lack of consistency in planning and housing types, impact on quality of life and ongoing issues with their current subdivision, such as lighting.
When the project came back for the second hearing, Schellinger asked the council to continue the public hearing for the general plan and zoning changes while he continued to meet with the neighbors to discuss the plans. At the same time, he said he was moving forward with seeking state financing for the project.
Schellinger said that, in hindsight, the request for a continuance was a pretty good idea. He said he’s spent a lot of time with city staff and the neighbors to talk through a lot of different issues.
That resulted in Schellinger pulling back on the development concept and concluding it was probably premature to try to develop it all at once.
About 10 days after the last hearing, Schellinger advanced a proposal to develop the southern phase, with plans to pull back the general plan amendment request for the northern phase.
He said over the following weeks he decided to come back with specific development applications when the funding is available for those phases.
In the meantime, “We have a clear line of sight” for the first 64 apartments, said Schellinger, who is optimistic that they will get Cal Home funding for the 38 cluster homes, at which time they will come back to the city for approval.
Schellinger said he would delay planning efforts on the remainder of the homes on the northern portion of the property until he knows the market conditions. He said he couldn’t imagine that would happen within the next three years.
Mark Borghesani, owner of Kelseyville Lumber, said it comes down to how the market and the demand has changed, noting the cost of development has put the private sector out of business for now.
He said he would like to see his employees and young people have the opportunity to purchase the homes Schellinger wants to build.
Through his business he’s dealt with the Schellingers in Lake County and in Santa Rosa. “They’re a good group,” Borghesani said. “They’re well respected up here and in Sonoma County.”
Parkside Subdivision resident Kim Costa submitted to the city another lengthy letter raising various issues with Schellinger’s project. She said the city “has been quite the cheerleader for this project” and neighbors’ concerns have been “relatively squashed.”
Costa said the project isn’t consistent with the general plan, and they don’t favor apartments in that area. “We’re not opposed to housing, we just think a high number of units out there doesn't fit.”
Christina Price of Lakeport, who also is a member of the Lake County Planning Commission, said she didn’t want people to lose sight of what’s going on. “This is a rezone.”
Price said the focus needs to be on housing and the ripple effect a project like Schellinger’s can have on the city and the county.
“It seems to me those apartments don’t belong there,” Councilman Froio said during the discussion.
The council also received a letter in support of the project from the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, read into the record by Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Nick Walker.
The letter, signed by Chamber Board President Bobby Dutcher, said the community is lucky that a company such as Waterstone Residential wants to develop here.
“The objections to this project are the usual thing,” the letter noted, pointing to issues such as roads and noise.
During the council discussion, Councilman Kenny Parlet bristled at the suggestion made by one of the Parkside Subdivision residents that the council members already had made up their minds about the project and were rubber-stamping it. Parlet said the staff had gone to significant effort to analyze the project and respond to concerns.
Froio said he didn’t think the apartment project would preserve the neighborhood. He also didn’t think it was a good infill development because he believed it would have a detrimental effect on the current residents.
He didn’t like putting high density housing next to a high fire area and could not agree that the project’s traffic impacts had been adequately mitigated. “The proposed project does not make Lakeport a better place to live.”
Mayor Stacey Mattina said there are things she likes about the project and things that make her nervous, but the city needs housing.
She recounted describing the project to her husband and her daughter, a college graduate, jumped into the conversation asking, “Wait, you mean there would be a place for me to actually live here?”
Mattina said neighborhoods will not look the same in the future, “because nobody can afford them.”
In three separate motions, all of them offered by Parlet, the council adopted the mitigated negative declaration and mitigated monitoring and reporting program, approved the
general plan amendment and introduced the proposed zone change ordinance, and scheduled a public hearing for the second reading of the zone change ordinance on Dec. 6. Froio was the lone dissenter on each of the votes.
Spurr said he decided to vote yes because this aspect of the project is a good starting point to see if it will turn out the way Schellinger is proposing.
“I hope I didn’t make a mistake,” Spurr said.
In other business on Tuesday, the council welcomed new Public Works employees Cody Morland and Lucy Avilez, and held a public hearing to introduce the draft ordinance modifying city guidelines for outdoor dining design, voted to set a second reading for Dec. 6 and adopt the draft resolution establishing the outdoor dining design guidelines.
The council also voted to adopt a resolution authorizing the city to submit an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for funding under the CPLHA Competitive Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.
Email Elizabeth Larson atThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Peter Schellinger of Waterstone Residential received a 3-1 vote from the council, with Councilman Michael Froio voting no due to concerns about the project’s potential effect on the residents of the existing homes at Parkside Subdivision.
Schellinger’s Parkside Residential Project at build out will include 128 new apartment units and 48 cluster homes on the 15.16-acre property at 1310 Craig Ave.
It’s on a portion of the 96-lot Schellinger Subdivision, approved in three phases in 2005. The first phase consisted of 31 lots, where 17 homes were built by Schellinger Brothers, Peter Schellinger’s father and uncle.
Community Development Director Jenni Byers, who noted the City Council had seen the project twice before, said it had been revised to focus on converting 3.42 acres of the property from R-1, or low density residential, to R-3, high density residential.
The council’s action on Tuesday clears the way for Schellinger to move forward with building a 64-unit apartment community in the project’s southern phase. Waterstone will separately seek approval for a tentative parcel map creating four separate parcels for the entire project site, including the other 64 apartments and the 48 cluster homes, meant to be middle market housing.
Schellinger told the council he planned to come back in early 2023 to seek the approvals for the cluster homes. He anticipates that he would start work on building those cluster homes during the 16 to 18 months it would take to build the first 64 apartments.
Byers said California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued guidance to local governments in October regarding mitigating wildfire risk from proposed developments in fire-prone areas.
That guidance focuses on areas including project density, project location, water supply and infrastructure, evacuation and emergency access, and fire hardening structures and homes.
Byers said that the project location is outside of the wildland urban interface and based on Bonta’s guidelines, it’s an appropriate building site.
In August, the Lakeport Planning Commission discussed the project and recommended the council’s approval of it.
The Lakeport City Council heard it first in September, at which time the council approved introducing its zone change ordinance and scheduled a public hearing for Sept. 20 for the ordinance and adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and general plan amendment Schellinger was seeking.
The council took that action after hearing from the neighbors at the Parkside Subdivision, who brought up concerns including traffic, noise, a lack of consistency in planning and housing types, impact on quality of life and ongoing issues with their current subdivision, such as lighting.
When the project came back for the second hearing, Schellinger asked the council to continue the public hearing for the general plan and zoning changes while he continued to meet with the neighbors to discuss the plans. At the same time, he said he was moving forward with seeking state financing for the project.
Schellinger said that, in hindsight, the request for a continuance was a pretty good idea. He said he’s spent a lot of time with city staff and the neighbors to talk through a lot of different issues.
That resulted in Schellinger pulling back on the development concept and concluding it was probably premature to try to develop it all at once.
About 10 days after the last hearing, Schellinger advanced a proposal to develop the southern phase, with plans to pull back the general plan amendment request for the northern phase.
He said over the following weeks he decided to come back with specific development applications when the funding is available for those phases.
In the meantime, “We have a clear line of sight” for the first 64 apartments, said Schellinger, who is optimistic that they will get Cal Home funding for the 38 cluster homes, at which time they will come back to the city for approval.
Schellinger said he would delay planning efforts on the remainder of the homes on the northern portion of the property until he knows the market conditions. He said he couldn’t imagine that would happen within the next three years.
Mark Borghesani, owner of Kelseyville Lumber, said it comes down to how the market and the demand has changed, noting the cost of development has put the private sector out of business for now.
He said he would like to see his employees and young people have the opportunity to purchase the homes Schellinger wants to build.
Through his business he’s dealt with the Schellingers in Lake County and in Santa Rosa. “They’re a good group,” Borghesani said. “They’re well respected up here and in Sonoma County.”
Parkside Subdivision resident Kim Costa submitted to the city another lengthy letter raising various issues with Schellinger’s project. She said the city “has been quite the cheerleader for this project” and neighbors’ concerns have been “relatively squashed.”
Costa said the project isn’t consistent with the general plan, and they don’t favor apartments in that area. “We’re not opposed to housing, we just think a high number of units out there doesn't fit.”
Christina Price of Lakeport, who also is a member of the Lake County Planning Commission, said she didn’t want people to lose sight of what’s going on. “This is a rezone.”
Price said the focus needs to be on housing and the ripple effect a project like Schellinger’s can have on the city and the county.
“It seems to me those apartments don’t belong there,” Councilman Froio said during the discussion.
The council also received a letter in support of the project from the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, read into the record by Assistant City Manager/Finance Director Nick Walker.
The letter, signed by Chamber Board President Bobby Dutcher, said the community is lucky that a company such as Waterstone Residential wants to develop here.
“The objections to this project are the usual thing,” the letter noted, pointing to issues such as roads and noise.
During the council discussion, Councilman Kenny Parlet bristled at the suggestion made by one of the Parkside Subdivision residents that the council members already had made up their minds about the project and were rubber-stamping it. Parlet said the staff had gone to significant effort to analyze the project and respond to concerns.
Froio said he didn’t think the apartment project would preserve the neighborhood. He also didn’t think it was a good infill development because he believed it would have a detrimental effect on the current residents.
He didn’t like putting high density housing next to a high fire area and could not agree that the project’s traffic impacts had been adequately mitigated. “The proposed project does not make Lakeport a better place to live.”
Mayor Stacey Mattina said there are things she likes about the project and things that make her nervous, but the city needs housing.
She recounted describing the project to her husband and her daughter, a college graduate, jumped into the conversation asking, “Wait, you mean there would be a place for me to actually live here?”
Mattina said neighborhoods will not look the same in the future, “because nobody can afford them.”
In three separate motions, all of them offered by Parlet, the council adopted the mitigated negative declaration and mitigated monitoring and reporting program, approved the
general plan amendment and introduced the proposed zone change ordinance, and scheduled a public hearing for the second reading of the zone change ordinance on Dec. 6. Froio was the lone dissenter on each of the votes.
Spurr said he decided to vote yes because this aspect of the project is a good starting point to see if it will turn out the way Schellinger is proposing.
“I hope I didn’t make a mistake,” Spurr said.
In other business on Tuesday, the council welcomed new Public Works employees Cody Morland and Lucy Avilez, and held a public hearing to introduce the draft ordinance modifying city guidelines for outdoor dining design, voted to set a second reading for Dec. 6 and adopt the draft resolution establishing the outdoor dining design guidelines.
The council also voted to adopt a resolution authorizing the city to submit an application to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for funding under the CPLHA Competitive Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The town of Lower Lake is planning a special holiday event.
Hometown Christmas in Lower Lake will take place from 4 to 8 p.m. Friday, Dec. 9 on Main Street.
Shop local vendors throughout the evening and enjoy several special festivities.
At 5:15 p.m. there will be the Christmas tree lighting at the museum.
Santa Claus will arrive at the museum by fire truck at 5:30 p.m. and community members will be invited to come inside for Christmas carols, hot cider and cookies.
At 7 p.m. there will be a light parade on Main Street from Lake to Mill streets.
For parade or vendor applications, call Coleen at 707-533-7363 or Teresa at 707-888-1486.
Hometown Christmas in Lower Lake will take place from 4 to 8 p.m. Friday, Dec. 9 on Main Street.
Shop local vendors throughout the evening and enjoy several special festivities.
At 5:15 p.m. there will be the Christmas tree lighting at the museum.
Santa Claus will arrive at the museum by fire truck at 5:30 p.m. and community members will be invited to come inside for Christmas carols, hot cider and cookies.
At 7 p.m. there will be a light parade on Main Street from Lake to Mill streets.
For parade or vendor applications, call Coleen at 707-533-7363 or Teresa at 707-888-1486.
Jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM, often require a bachelor’s degree or higher, leaving few STEM opportunities for workers younger than 25 who shape the nation’s future workforce.
As a result, in 2021 workers between the ages of 16 and 24 made up 12.7% of total employment across all occupations but only 6.8% of all STEM workers (just under 800,000) in the United States.
While less common, STEM opportunities for young workers without a college degree exist – mostly technician occupations – and are needed to meet future demand.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in STEM occupations is projected to grow at twice the rate (10.8%) of overall employment (5.3%) through 2031.
National STEM/STEAM Day is celebrated every year on November 8 to encourage kids to explore their interests in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math careers. And nationwide efforts are underway to attract and train young workers through registered apprenticeship programs.
STEM occupations range from computer specialists to social scientists and STEM-related occupations include health care practitioners and architects.
As STEM employment increases, what are some potential STEM pathways for workers under 25?
We explore data from the recently released 2021 American Community Survey to highlight STEM occupations by age.
Younger workers and STEM
Younger workers (defined here as those between the ages of 16 to 24) are employed in a wide range of STEM occupations, with the largest concentration in technician-related ones.
Workers between the ages of 16 to 24 accounted for 21.8% of all life, physical and social science technicians in the United States in 2021. Smaller percentages of younger workers held STEM jobs as life scientists (4.0%) or social scientists (2.1%).
Life science technicians often work in laboratories assisting scientists and researchers with tasks such as collecting lab samples, performing routine tests and maintaining laboratory equipment. Life science technician jobs generally only require a high school or associate degree and receive on-the job training to maintain or advance to a new position.
Among the life, physical and social science technician occupations, “other” was the detailed category with the largest proportion (27.8%) of young STEM workers. This group of workers includes polygraph examiners, soil testers, meteorological aides and others.
Within the various technician-related occupations, a similar share (around 15%) of workers between the ages of 16 and 24 were employed as agricultural and food science technicians, biological technicians or chemical technicians. Another 10% were social science research assistants and 8% were environmental science and geoscience technicians.
Aging STEM workforce still younger than total labor force
The STEM workforce tends to have a younger age profile than the overall workforce.
In 2021, workers between the ages of 25 to 44 made up more than half (52.6%) of STEM workers – the largest share of STEM workers. Around 40% of older workers, those ages 45 and more, worked in STEM.
Despite the smaller share of older workers, the STEM workforce is aging. Older workers are staying in the labor market longer, potentially limiting opportunities for younger STEM workers.
These findings come amid longstanding efforts to not only increase the racial and gender make-up of STEM occupations but to encourage students from a young age to pursue STEM and STEM-related degrees.
The pathway to STEM varies by field, with less than a third of STEM-educated workers actually working in a STEM job. Still, STEM workers face favorable labor market opportunities compared to non-STEM workers, potentially benefiting the next generation of workers.
Overview of STEM occupations
STEM occupations include computer specialists, mathematicians, engineers, life scientists, physical scientists, social scientists and science technicians.
STEM-related occupations consist primarily of architects, healthcare practitioners, and healthcare technicians.
Non-STEM occupations are all other jobs not classified as STEM or STEM-related. The Census STEM code list includes 70 specific STEM occupations, 49 STEM-related occupations and 446 non-STEM occupations (excluding military-specific occupations).
Lynda Laughlin is chief of the Industry and Occupation Statistics Branch in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division. Anthony Martinez and Asiah Gayfield are survey statisticians in the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division.
