BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 216
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 216 (Swanson) - As Introduced: January 31, 2011
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill allows California Community Colleges (CCCs) to receive
full funding for credit-course instruction offered in
correctional institutions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Waives "open course" provisions for community college courses
offered in state correctional facilities, thus conforming to
current allowances for CCC courses in local or federal
correctional facilities, for which the college receive funding
even though the courses are not open to the general public.
2)Allows attendance hours generated by credit and career
development/college preparation courses, respectively, at all
correctional facilities to be funded at the corresponding
rates for those types of courses rather than at the lower,
non-credit rate.
3)Prohibits districts from claiming state apportionments for
instruction in correctional facilities if the district is
fully compensated by another entity for the costs of direct
instructional services, and requires districts to deduct any
partial compensation for correctional facility education from
their apportionment.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Ongoing General Fund (Prop. 98) cost pressure for converting
qualified existing courses to the full credit rate at local
and federal institutions.
(Currently, credit funding per FTES is $4,565, career
AB 216
Page 2
development and college preparation course funding is $3,232,
and non-credit funding is $2,745. According to the CCC
Chancellor's Office, in 2006-07 (most recent data available)
districts provided credit courses for 1,769 FTES in local and
federal correctional facilities. The majority (1,588 FTES)
already received full credit funding as distance education
courses open to the public. Under this bill, the remaining
FTES (181) would have received full credit apportionment at a
cost of $329,000.)
In addition to the above costs for existing courses, the
higher funding rates could result in increased course
offerings at local and federal facilities, with resulting
state costs.
2)Additional costs would depend on the number of FTEs taking
classes in state correctional facilities and thus eligible for
apportionment funding under this bill. For every 100
for-credit FTEs, annual GF (Prop. 98) costs would increase by
$456,000. Community colleges are limited to enrollment caps
that arguably would make this a zero sum change, but not all
colleges are at their caps, thus expanding access and funding
rates creates enrollment and funding pressure.
3)To the extent this bill leads to increased education
programming for inmates, the state and local governments could
realize unquantifiable savings associated with decreased
recidivism.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, this bill seeks to address
difficulties that the formerly incarcerated face due to a lack
of education and job skills. The author contends that existing
law creates disincentives for CCCs to offer credit courses and
career development courses in state prisons by not reimbursing
them at the rate appropriate for the type of course offered.
The author argues that research shows that inmates receiving
educational opportunities are much less likely to recidivate,
saving the state millions of dollars per year.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) is funded to provide inmate education in state
correctional facilities. As a result of an unallocated cut to
the CDCR's budget for 2009-10, the department implemented a
AB 216
Page 3
$250 million reduction in rehabilitative programs, including
academic, vocational, substance abuse and other programs for
inmates and parolees. An additional $150 million reduction is
included as part of the 2011-12 budget.
2)Current law prohibits CCCs from claiming state funding for
classes that are not open to the public, however, an exemption
is allowed for inmate education in city, county and federal
correctional facilities, with funding provided at non-credit
rates. State funding under this exemption is not allowed for
CCC classes in state correctional facilities.
3)Prior Legislation . In 2010, AB 1702 (Swanson) and in 2009, SB
574 (Hancock), which were virtually identical to this bill,
were both held on Suspense in Senate Appropriations. In 2008,
SB 413 (Scott), also substantially similar, was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who argued that the bill "appears to
create inappropriate fiscal incentives for community colleges,
state prisons, local correctional agencies, and other
contracting entities that may lead to supplanting current
funding provided through the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation."
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081