BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  1





          (Without Reference to File)





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB 9  
          X2 (Thurmond)


          As Amended  March 3, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                 |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Public Health   |12-0 |Bonta, Maienschein,   |                     |
          |                |     |Baker, Bonilla,       |                     |
          |                |     |Campos,               |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |Eduardo Garcia,       |                     |
          |                |     |Levine, Santiago,     |                     |
          |                |     |Steinorth, Mark       |                     |
          |                |     |Stone, Thurmond, Wood |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+---------------------|
          |Finance         |7-2  |Weber, Bloom, Gomez,  |Melendez, Bigelow    |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |








                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  2





          |                |     |Jones-Sawyer,         |                     |
          |                |     |McCarty, Obernolte,   |                     |
          |                |     |Ting                  |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
          |                |     |                      |                     |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------- 


          SUMMARY:  Clarifies charter school eligibility for tobacco use  
          prevention program (TUPE) funds; requires the California State  
          Department of Education (CDE) to require all school districts,  
          charter schools, and county offices of education receiving TUPE  
          funds to adopt and enforce a tobacco-free campus policy;  
          prohibits the use of tobacco and nicotine products in any county  
          office of education, charter school, or school district-owned or  
          leased building, on school or district property, and in school  
          or district vehicles; and, requires all schools, districts, and  
          offices of education to post a sign reading "Tobacco use is  
          prohibited" at all entrances.




          EXISTING LAW:


          1)Levies a $0.25 tax on each pack of cigarettes sold in the  
            state through Proposition 99 approved by the California voters  
            in the November 1988 General Election. 


          2)Establishes the Tobacco Education and Research Oversight  
            Committee (TEROC) charged with overseeing the use of  
            Proposition 99 tobacco tax revenues for tobacco control and  
            prevention education and for tobacco-related research.  TEROC  
            provides advice to the State Department of Health Care  
            Services and CDE with respect to policy development,  
            integration, and evaluation of tobacco education programs. 









                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  3






          3)Specifies the duties of CDE with respect to tobacco programs  
            administered by local public and private schools, school  
            districts, and county offices of education and requires CDE to  
            award and administer grants for projects directed at the  
            prevention of tobacco use among school age children. 


          4)Requires all school districts and county offices of education  
            that receive grant funds to provide tobacco-use prevention  
            instruction that addresses all of the following topics:


             a)   Immediate and long-term undesirable physiologic,  
               cosmetic, and social consequences of tobacco use;


             b)   Reasons that adolescents say they smoke or use tobacco;


             c)   Peer norms and social influences that promote tobacco  
               use; and, 


             d)   Refusal skills for resisting social influences that  
               promote tobacco use.


          5)Requires all school districts and county offices of education  
            that receive funds to adopt and enforce a tobacco-free campus  
            policy which prohibits the use of tobacco products at any  
            time, in district-owned or leased buildings, on district  
            property and in district vehicles.


          6)Specifies that any school district or county office of  
            education that does not have a tobacco-free district policy is  
            not eligible to apply for funds.









                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  4






          7)Permits a charter school that elects to receive its funding  
            directly to apply individually for federal and state  
            categorical programs to the extent it is eligible for funding  
            and meets the provisions of the program. 


          8)Permits a charter school that does not elect to receive its  
            funding directly, to, in cooperation with its chartering  
            authority, apply for federal and state categorical programs to  
            the extent it is eligible for funding and meets the provisions  
            of the program.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Finance Committee,  
          potential state reimbursable mandate costs, in the range of  
          $130,000 to $165,000 (Proposition 98 of 1988/General Fund) due  
          to the requirement that schools post signs at all entrances  
          notifying the public that tobacco use is prohibited.  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. 


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, by mandating tobacco-free  
          campuses and by updating tobacco definitions to include  
          smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes, this bill will create  
          schools that protect students from tobacco and provide school  
          personnel a smoke-free environment.  The author states that only  
          607 local educational agencies (LEAs) receive TUPE funds,  
          leaving 1,207 LEAs with no obligation to ban tobacco on their  
          campuses.  The author points to information from TEROC which  
          shows the number of school districts with a tobacco-free  
          certification has decreased, and also notes that funding for  
          TUPE has decreased over time, rendering a further disincentive  
          to schools to create tobacco-free policies.  The author  
          concludes this bill will help reduce tobacco use among our youth  
          by ensuring adult role models do not use tobacco, limiting youth  








                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  5





          access to tobacco, and discouraging groups from using tobacco on  
          school grounds.


          Proposition 99.  In November 1988, California voters approved  
          the California Tobacco Health Protection Act of 1988, also known  
          as Proposition 99.  This initiative increased the state  
          cigarette tax by $0.25 per pack and added an equivalent amount  
          on other tobacco products.  The new revenues were earmarked for  
          programs to reduce smoking, to provide health care services to  
          indigents, to support tobacco-related research, and to fund  
          resource programs for the environment.  The money is deposited  
          by using the following formula:  20% is deposited in the Health  
          Education Account (HEA); 35% in the Hospital Services Account;  
          10% in the Physician Services Account; 5% in the Research  
          Account; 5% in the Public Resources Account; and, 25% in the  
          Unallocated Account (funds in this account are available for  
          appropriation by the Legislature).


          Tobacco prevention in schools.  The HEA funds both community and  
          school-based health education programs to prevent and reduce  
          tobacco use and is jointly administered by the California  
          Tobacco Control Program (CTCP) and CDE.  Currently, CTCP  
          receives approximately two-thirds of the funding and CDE  
          receives approximately one-third of the funding available in the  
          HEA.  CDE administers school-based funding to grades 4 to 8  
          based on an allocation method and to high schools through  
          competitive grants that go directly to school districts and  
          charter schools.  LEAs, including school districts, county  
          offices of education, and directly-funded charter schools apply  
          directly for TUPE grant funding.  Locally-funded charter schools  
          must apply for TUPE funding through its chartering authority. 


          These competitive grants are funded in two tiers. The first tier  
          of funding is $1,500 per year for three years and goes to school  
          districts and charter schools that establish a tobacco-free  
          school policy, complete the healthy kids survey, and post  








                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  6





          tobacco free signs on the school property.  The second tier of  
          funding is for school districts and charter schools that comply  
          with the requirements under tier one, in addition to  
          implementing a more comprehensive tobacco-free school policy  
          including cessation programs and school curriculum.  CDE uses  
          Proposition 99 funds to administer TUPE which provides grants to  
          local education agencies as an incentive to implement and  
          enforce tobacco-free campus policies.  


          Smoking and youth.  California monitors smoking rates among high  
          school students using the California Student Tobacco Survey  
          (CSTS).  The 2012 survey showed the percentage of California  
          high school students who reported smoking a cigarette within the  
          previous 30 days was 10.5%, or 297,000 students.  Smoking among  
          high school students in California is declining consistently and  
          is lower than for the rest of the United States.  Student  
          smoking rates declined 51% from 2000 to 2012; however, there are  
          substantial differences in student smoking prevalence when  
          examined by race or ethnicity.  While rates declined for  
          non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders, the  
          rate for African-Americans increased by 15.9% over this same  
          time period.


          Health effects of smoking.  Smoking is a major cause of many  
          deadly health problems  heart disease, aneurysms, bronchitis,  
          emphysema, and stroke.  Using tobacco can damage a woman's  
          reproductive health and hurt babies.  Tobacco use is linked with  
          reduced fertility and a higher risk of miscarriage, early  
          delivery (premature birth), and stillbirth.  It's also a cause  
          of low birth-weight in infants and has been linked to a higher  
          risk of birth defects and sudden infant death syndrome.


          Smoking causes 80% of all deaths from chronic obstructive  
          pulmonary disease, and causes stroke and coronary heart disease,  
          the leading causes of death in the United States.  Smokers are  
          30 to 40% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than  








                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  7





          nonsmokers, and people with diabetes who smoke are more likely  
          than nonsmokers to have trouble with insulin dosing and with  
          controlling their disease.  


          Smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United  
          States, or about one in five.  The average annual  
          smoking-attributable mortality rate in California for the years  
          2000-04 was 235 per 100,000.  The range across states is 138.3  
          per 100,000 to 370.6 per 100,000.  California ranks 6th lowest  
          per capita among all 50 states in deaths attributed to smoking.   
          If nobody smoked it would prevent one of every three cancer  
          deaths in the United States from happening.  


          The California Medical Association, the Service Employees  
          International Union, the Association of Northern California  
          Oncologists, the Medical Oncology Association of Southern  
          California, the American Lung Association, and others state in  
          support of the bill that it protects students, staff and  
          visitors from the harmful effects of tobacco by requiring that  
          all LEAs adopt and enforce tobacco-free policies on their  
          campuses.  Supporters further state that only school districts  
          that receive TUPE funding are required to implement 100% tobacco  
          free policies and that requiring all LEAs to adopt 100%  
          tobacco-free campus policies and by expanding the definition of  
          tobacco products ton include electronic cigarettes, snuff, chew,  
          and other nicotine delivery services, student health will be  
          improved.




          The First 5 Association of California, the American Heart  
          Association, and the California Dental Association all state in  
          support of this bill, that schools that consistently enforce  
          tobacco-free policies have shown decreased rates of smoking  
          among their students.  Supporters argue that evidence shows that  
          comprehensive school-based programs that include tobacco free  








                                                                    AB 9 X2


                                                                    Page  8





          policies, combined with community and mass-media efforts, can  
          effectively prevent or postpone the onset of smoking by 20% to  
          40% among United States teens.


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Lara Flynn / P.H. & D.S. / (916) 319-2097  FN:  
          0002642