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