BILL ANALYSIS Ó
ABX2 9
Page 1
Date of Hearing: September 8, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Shirley Weber, Chair
ABX2 9
(Thurmond) - As Amended August 27, 2015
SUBJECT: Tobacco use programs.
SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of tobacco and other nicotine
products at any time in a county office of education, charter
school, or school district building, on school or district
property, and in school or district vehicles. Also clarifies
that charter schools are eligible for tobacco use prevention
education (TUPE) program funds. Specifically, this bill:
1 Requires all school districts, charter schools, and
county offices of education to prominently display signs at
all entrances to school property stating "Tobacco use is
prohibited."
2 Specifies that the prohibition of tobacco includes, but
is not limited to, smokeless tobacco, snuff, chew, clove
cigarettes, and other nicotine delivery devices, such as
electronic cigarettes.
3 Clarifies that, under the TUPE program, the prohibition
of tobacco does not include prescription products, nicotine
patches or nicotine gum.
ABX2 9
Page 2
FISCAL EFFECT:
1) Potential state reimbursable mandate costs, in the range
of $130,000 to $165,000 (Proposition 98/GF) due to the
requirement that schools post signs at all entrances
notifying the public that tobacco use is prohibited. Under
current law, school districts and county offices of
education can apply for grant funding under the TUPE
program if they have a tobacco-free policy and post signs
stating "tobacco use is prohibited" at all entrances to
school property. This bill would require all school
districts, charter schools and county offices of education
to have tobacco-free policies with signs displayed.
2) Potential cost pressure on existing TUPE funding due to
the possible increase in participating charter schools.
Currently charter schools are eligible to receive TUPE
funds, however, participation among charter schools is low.
This bill specifically states that charter schools are
eligible for TUPE funding, which could result in increased
participation.
COMMENTS:
1 Purpose. According to the author, this bill will protect
students from tobacco and provide school personnel a
smoke-free environment. The author notes that participation
in the TUPE program is low, meaning that many schools are
not required to ban tobacco on their campuses. This bill
requires all school districts, charter schools and county
offices of education to ban tobacco on school property in
an effort to reduce tobacco use among youth.
2 Education Mandates. School districts and county offices
of education are eligible to receive reimbursement for any
state mandated activity through either the traditional
mandate claim reimbursement process, or the K-12 education
mandates block grant. Charter schools cannot seek
ABX2 9
Page 3
reimbursement through the mandate claim process, but are
eligible to receive block grant funding. Under the mandates
block grant, schools receive a block grant for all mandated
activities and do not have to file individual claims, which
can be a time-consuming and burdensome process. Most school
districts and county offices of education opt to receive
block grant funding and virtually all charter schools
choose this option.
This bill requires all schools to post signs banning
tobacco at all school entrances, which could be considered
a state mandate. If the Commission on State Mandates
determines the activities in this bill to be a reimbursable
state mandate, the Legislature could consider adding the
mandate to the K-12 education mandates block grant through
the annual budget process.
3 Proposition 99. Proposition 99, passed by voters in
1988, increased the state cigarette tax by $0.25 per pack
and added an equivalent amount to other tobacco products.
This revenue is used to support various tobacco related
programs. Of the Proposition 99 revenue, 20 percent is
deposited in the Health Education Account (HEA), which
funds both community and school-based health education
programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use. The HEA is
jointly administered by the California Tobacco Control
Program (CTCP) and the California Department of Education
(CDE). The CDE's portion of the HEA is used for the
school-based TUPE program.
The 2015 Budget estimates HEA revenue will be $64.4 million
for 2015-16. Of this amount, the CDE received $16.4 million
for the TUPE program, which includes funding for state
administration ($1.2 million), county offices of education
($3.7 million) and local assistance ($11.5 million). Local
assistance grants for the TUPE program totaled $11.6
million for 2015-16. Since grant awards exceeded estimated
revenue for 2015-16, the CDE used carryover funds from the
ABX2 9
Page 4
prior year.
4 Tobacco Use Prevention Education (TUPE) program. The
TUPE program provides funding for tobacco prevention
programs in grades six through twelve through a competitive
application process. The CDE administers TUPE funding based
on two tiers. Tier one grantees receive $1,500 per year for
three years to enforce a tobacco-free policy, complete the
Healthy Kids survey and post signs prohibiting tobacco at
all entrances to school property. Tier two funding is based
on a formula of $54 per unit of student average daily
attendance to comply with the requirements under tier one
and administer additional tobacco-use prevention
activities.
According to the CDE, there are currently 327 school
districts, 40 county offices of education and only 4
charter schools participating in the TUPE program. This
bill would require all schools to prohibit tobacco use on
school property and clarifies that charter schools are
eligible to receive TUPE funding, which could increase
participation in the program.
ABX2 9
Page 5
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Health Officers Association of California (HOAC)
American Lung Association in California
California Medical Association
Children Now
Opposition
None received
Analysis Prepared by:Katie Hardeman / FINANCE /916-319-2099
ABX2 9
Page 6