BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de Le�n, Chair
SB 195 (Liu) - Postsecondary Education: Statewide Goals
Amended: April 24, 2013 Policy Vote: Education 8-1
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: May 13, 2013 Consultant: Jacqueline
Wong-Hernandez
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 195 establishes statewide goals for guiding
budget and policy decisions in higher education, requires that
the Governor determine an educational administrative body to
convene a working group, as specified, to develop and recommend
specific metrics for measuring progress toward these goals, and
requires the administering body to report its recommendations
for statewide metrics to the appropriate policy and fiscal
committees of the Legislature, and the Governor, by January 31,
2014.
Fiscal Impact: The direct fiscal impact of this bill is unknown,
because the bill assigns primary responsibility for its
requirements to an appropriate administrative body of the
Governor's choosing.
Working group: Participation by various entities will
likely result in minor workload increases. Without knowing
what entity is ultimately responsible for the requirements
of the bill, convening the working group and reporting the
recommendations, it is impossible to determine direct costs
for the lead agency/entity.
Cost pressure: Potentially substantial cost pressure, to
the extent the metrics change funding priorities.
Background: Existing law establishes the Donahoe Higher
Education Act, which outlines the laws under which postsecondary
educational institutions operate in California. (Education Code
Title 3, Division 5, Part 40)
Within the Donahoe Act, existing law establishes findings and
declarations based on the periodic review of the Master Plan for
Higher Education by the Legislature. Current law declares the
intent of the Legislature to outline in statute, clear, concise,
SB 195 (Liu)
Page 1
statewide goals and outcomes for effective implementation of the
Master Plan, attuned to the public interest of the people and
State of California, and to expect the system as a whole and the
higher education segments to be accountable for attaining those
goals. Additionally, consistent with the spirit of the original
Master Plan and subsequent updates, current law declares the
intent of the Legislature that the governing boards be given
ample discretion in implementing policies and programs necessary
to attain those goals.
(Education Code � 66003)
Proposed Law: SB 195 seeks to establish statewide goals for
guiding budget and policy decisions in higher education. More
specifically, this bill:
1) Outlines the following three goals for guiding budget
and policy decisions in higher education: a) Improved
student success and outcomes for graduates, as specified;
b) Better alignment of degrees and credentials awarded with
the state's economic, workforce and civic needs; c)
Effective and efficient use of resources in order to
increase high-quality postsecondary educational outcomes
and maintain affordability.
2) Requires that metrics to measure progress toward these
goals be developed with the assistance of a working group
to be convened by an appropriate educational administrative
body determined by the Governor.
3) Outlines the composition of the working group to include
postsecondary education segment representatives, the
Department of Finance (DOF),1-3 members with expertise in
state accountability who are unaffiliated with any of the
segments of higher education, a representative of the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), and other relevant
state agency representatives.
4) Requires the working group to develop 6-12 measures
derived from publicly available data sources, and that
these measures be disaggregated as specified.
5) Requires the metrics to be used for the purposes of the
annual reporting requirements for institutions that
participate in the Cal Grant program.
SB 195 (Liu)
Page 2
6) Requires the educational administrative body, in
consultation with DOF and the LAO, to submit the
recommended metrics developed by the working group to the
appropriate legislative committees and the Governor by
January 31, 2014.
7) Declares the Legislature's intent to: a) Identify,
define and formally adopt appropriate metrics to be used
for the purpose of monitoring progress toward the state
goals; b) Promote progress toward the goals through budget
and policy decisions within higher education; and, c) Use
the reporting system established per the bill's provisions
to help ensure the effective and efficient use of state
resources available to higher education.
Related Legislation: SB 721 (Lowenthal) 2012 was substantially
similar to this bill, but required the specified workgroup to be
convened and led by the LAO. That bill was vetoed by Governor
Brown. The veto message, in part, read:
Questions about who should measure, what to measure and how
to measure what is learned in college are way too important
to be delegated to the Legislative Analyst.
Staff Comments: This bill outlines the following three goals for
guiding budget and policy decisions in higher education: a)
Improved student success, to include, but not be limited to,
greater participation by demographic groups that have
participated at lower rates, greater completion by all students
and improved outcomes for graduates; b) Better alignment of
degrees and credentials awarded with the state's workforce and
civic needs; and, c) Increased efficiency so desired
postsecondary education outcomes can be achieved within a given
resource level while maintaining high quality.
In order to progress toward those goals, this bill requires that
"an appropriate educational administrative body, as determined
by the Governor" convene a working group, as specified, to
develop metrics for measuring progress toward the goals. The
author appears to be attempting to address the Governor's veto
message of the substantially similar SB 721 (Lowenthal) 2012.
This bill specifically requires the working group to develop
SB 195 (Liu)
Page 3
6-12 measures derived from publicly available data sources. This
bill further requires the educational administrative body, in
consultation with the DOF and the LAO, to submit a report on the
recommended metrics to be collected and reported to legislative
policy committees, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and
the Governor by January 31, 2014.
Without identifying a lead agency or entity, it is unclear what
costs might be incurred to convene and staff the working group.
Participation in the meetings by representatives of each of the
segments, the LAO, and the DOF will require some staff time, but
is likely minor and absorbable by existing staff. The process of
creating the metrics is unlikely to result in new costs to the
state.
This bill declares the Legislature's intent to identify, define
and formally adopt appropriate metrics for measuring success,
based upon the working group recommendations, and to "promote
progress toward the goals through budget and policy decisions
within higher education." The intention of this bill appears to
be to use the metrics, in part, to guide funding decisions for
higher education. The Legislature could presumably tie funding
levels or program funding priorities to performance, based on
these metrics. The most substantial fiscal impact is likely to
result from the recommended metrics developed by the working
group.
While the bill specifies that it intends to "ensure the
effective and efficient use of whatever funding is available to
postsecondary education", rather than specifically secure
additional funding, the decisions reached by the metrics could
result in funding shifts. To the extent that the metrics
encourage funding to be directed to certain areas of "success",
they will likely create cost pressure to provide additional
funding to expand programming and focus on the new priorities.
It is possible, however, that other areas of higher education
could be reduced to offset the cost of any expansions. To the
extent that funding decisions are made based upon the new
metrics, this bill will have a fiscal impact on the state.
Recommended Amendments: If the author intends to give the
Governor full discretion to choose the working group leadership,
the author may wish to further broaden the language to "the
Governor's designee" instead of "educational administrative
SB 195 (Liu)
Page 4
body". The author may also wish to consider allowing more than
one month's time for the Governor to appoint a lead, the lead to
convene the working group, and the working group to develop and
recommend specific metrics.