BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Alan Lowenthal, Chair 2011-2012 Regular Session BILL NO: AB 216 AUTHOR: Swanson INTRODUCED: January 31, 2011 FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 22, 2011 URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez SUBJECT : Community colleges: Inmate education programs, apportionment calculations. SUMMARY This bill waives the open course requirement for community college courses offered in state correctional facilities and allow attendance hours generated by credit courses to be funded at the credit rate, instead of the noncredit funding rate. BACKGROUND Current law authorizes a community college district to claim state apportionment for classes it provides to inmates of any city, county, or city and county jail, road camp, farm for adults, or federal correctional facility (not for inmates in state correctional facilities). Under current law the attendance hours generated by these classes, whether credit or noncredit, are counted as noncredit attendance hours for apportionment purposes. (Education Code § 84810.5) Classes provided to inmates of state correctional facilities are not currently authorized for state apportionment. In addition, no funds provided for inmate education programs can be considered as part of the base revenues for community college districts in computing apportionments. (EC § 84810.5) ANALYSIS This bill waives the open course requirement for community college courses offered in state correctional facilities AB 216 Page 2 and allow attendance hours generated by credit courses to be funded at the credit rate, instead of the noncredit funding rate. More specifically, the bill: 1) Waives open course provisions for any local community college district governing board that provides classes for inmates in state correctional facilities. 2) Expands the existing authority of local community college governing boards to claim full-time equivalent student (FTES) for inmate education programs to include FTES generated in state correctional facilities. 3) Prohibits the use of the waiver of open course provisions granted in the bill in any other context or situation. 4) Authorizes attendance hours generated in community college courses offered in state, city, county or federal correctional facilities to be funded at either: (a) the marginal credit rate for credit courses, (b) the noncredit rate for noncredit courses, or (c) the career development and college preparation (CDCP) rate, as specified. 5) Deletes the prohibition on the inclusion of funds received for inmate education programs in the base revenue computations for community college district apportionments. 6) Prohibits community colleges from claiming state funding for attendance hours generated in any inmate education class for which the college receives full compensation for direct education costs or through contract or instructional agreement from another public agency or private source, and requires the offset of state aid for partial compensation received from any such source. 7) Declares that the bill does not provide a source of funds to shift, supplant or reduce costs incurred by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in providing inmate education. STAFF COMMENTS AB 216 Page 3 1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office, this bill is intended to "remove the current barriers and disincentives to CCC coursework in correctional facilities to help address the inadequate educational attainment that leads to the state's high incarceration and recidivism rates." 2) Would CCCs shift course offerings to the richer FTES funded rates? As of March 2011, credit courses are currently funded at the rate of $4,578 per FTES and noncredit courses at $2,744 per FTES, a difference of $1,834. And the CDCP rate per FTES is $3,232. Would colleges begin to reclassify some existing noncredit courses as credit, without a sufficient educational basis? 3) CCC course offering priorities : Ongoing budget shortfalls and resulting General Fund reductions combined with increased student demand in part due to unemployment and the overall economic slowdown has left CCCs unable to provide course offerings to fully meet student needs. According to CCC Chancellor Jack Scott, approximately 140,000 students have been turned away from CCCs, over 95 percent of all classes are at capacity, an estimated 10,000-15,000 student are on wait lists for courses. CCC reductions proposed in the 2011-12 Budget will mean an anticipated 350,000 students will be turned away next year. In recent years the Legislature has directed CCC in implementing budget reductions to prioritize transfer, basic skills, and career technical education courses. The goal of this legislation is to encourage CCC course offerings for inmates. The Committee may wish to consider if encouraging inmate education is consistent with the Legislature's priorities for CCC course offerings. 4) Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) are typically funded to provide inmate education in state correctional facilities. The proposed 2011-12 Budget, in response to an overall General Fund shortfall of $26 billion, included an approximately $1 billion reduction or redirection to the CDCR budget. Of this total, approximately $101 million is a presumed reduction in rehabilitative programs, AB 216 Page 4 including academic, vocational, substance abuse and other programs for inmates and parolees. Furthermore, in previous years, when the CDCR has been squeezed by increasing custody and health care costs of inmates, the department typically scales back rehabilitative program offerings, for example in 2010-11 Budget approximately $250 million in rehabilitative program funding was eliminated. According to the CDCR Office of Correctional Education, academic courses through the 12th grade are available at 32 institutions, and 15 different vocational trades are taught within CDCR facilities. Would the offering of credit funded instruction by community colleges make it easier for CDCR to scale back its rehabilitative programs? Previous legislation similar to this bill raised issues surrounding the possible supplanting of CDCR's inmate education effort. This bill contains language specifying these provisions shall not be construed as providing a source of funds to shift, supplant or reduce the current CDCR efforts. 5) Prior Legislation . AB 1702 (Swanson, 2010) was nearly identical to this measure. This measure passed from this Committee on an 8-0 vote. AB 1702 was held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. SB 574 (Hancock, 2009) was similar to this measure. It passed from this Committee on a 9-0 vote. SB 574 was ultimately held on the Senate Appropriations suspense file. SB 413 (Scott, 2008) was nearly identical to SB 574. SB 413 was vetoed by the Governor whose veto message read in pertinent part: This bill is substantively similar to a bill I previously vetoed in a prior legislative session. While I respect the author's attempt to get community colleges to play a role in improving instructional delivery to correctional inmates, this bill as drafted appears to create AB 216 Page 5 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. SUPPORT Advancement Project American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California School Employees Association Community College League of California Faculty Association of California Community Colleges Greater Sacramento Urban League Kern Community College District Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Los Angeles Community College District Peralta Community College District Rio Hondo Community College District San Jose-Evergreen Community College District West Kern Community College District OPPOSITION None on file.