BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AJR 46
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THE ECONOMY
Eduardo Garcia, Chair
AJR 46
(Bonta) - As Introduced June 23, 2016
SUBJECT: Unemployment: Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act
SUMMARY: Memorializes the California Legislature's appeal to the U.S.
Congress to include unemployment rates by race and ethnicity within
the criteria used to make funding allotments under the federal
Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA). Specifically, this bill:
1)Makes legislative findings, including, but not limited to:
a) California's economy has significantly improved since the
Great Recession, with unemployment rates down to 5.4% in March
2016 and that California has added 2.1 million jobs since the
recovery began in February 2010;
b) The Pew Charitable Trusts ranked California among the bottom
10 states in bringing people 25 through 54 years of age back to
employment. In 2014, 73.6% of California's prime working
population had jobs compared with 77.9% in 2007;
AJR 46
Page 2
c) California has had an uneven economic recovery, with the
coastal regions rebounding with more economic vigor relative to
inland areas of the state. At the city level, however,
employment disparities continue to persist even in areas that
report overall high rates of economic and job growth;
d) Data shows that as a region, the San Francisco bay area is
closest to closing the employment gap since 2007. County
averages, however, continue to hide persistent unemployment among
certain populations. In Alameda County, where March 2016
unemployment dropped to 4.3%, African-American and Latino
unemployment in the City of Oakland is still high at 18% and 16%,
respectively;
e) The Legislature recommends that the U.S. Congress implement a
racial equity lens when structuring WIOA investment proposal
requirements to ensure that unemployment rates are analyzed from
multiple perspectives and not only average unemployment rates at
the aggregate population level; and
f) For every $1.00 of wealth a median Caucasian household has, a
median Asian household has about 81[, a median Hispanic family
has 7[, and a median African-American family has 6[. The
disparity in employment exists not just by region in California,
but also by race.
2)Petitions the U.S. Congress to include unemployment rates by race
and ethnicity within the WIOA scoring criteria.
AJR 46
Page 3
3)Provides that copies of the resolution be transmitted to U.S.
President and U.S. Vice President, Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, and to
each U.S. Senator and U.S. Representative from California, as
specified.
EXISTING STATE LAW establishes the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (Agency) for the purpose of addressing issues relating to
California workers and their employers. The Agency is responsible for
labor law enforcement, workforce development, and benefit payment and
adjudication. The Agency works to combat the underground economy and
help legitimate businesses and workers in California through a
combination of enforcement and education activities. Departments and
other state entities under the Agency include:
1)Agricultural Labor Relations Board;
2)The California Workforce Board, who is charged with overseeing the
state's WIOA-related activities;
3)The Employment Development Department, including the Employment and
Employment-related Services Program and the National Dislocated
Workers Grant Program;
AJR 46
Page 4
4)Employment Training Panel;
5)The Department of Industrial Relations, including the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards; and
6)Public Employment Relations Board.
FEDERAL EXISTING LAW
1)Authorizes WIOA for the purpose of:
a) Increasing access to and opportunities for the employment,
education, training, and support services needed to succeed in
the labor market, particularly for those individuals with
barriers to employment.
b) Supporting the alignment of workforce investment, education,
and economic development systems in support of a comprehensive,
accessible, and high-quality workforce development system in the
US.
c) Improving the quality and labor market relevance of workforce
investment, education, and economic development efforts to
provide America's workers with the skills and credentials
AJR 46
Page 5
necessary to secure and advance in employment with
family-sustaining wages, and to provide America's employers with
the skilled workers the employers needed to succeed in a global
economy.
d) Promoting improvement in the structure of and delivery of
services through the US workforce development system to better
address the employment and skill needs of workers, jobseekers,
and employers.
e) Increasing the prosperity of workers and employers in the US,
the economic growth of communities, regions, and States, and the
global competitiveness of the United States.
f) Providing workforce investment activities, through statewide
and local workforce development systems, that increase the
employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and increase
attainment of recognized postsecondary credentials by
participants, and as a result, improve the quality of the
workforce, reduce welfare dependency, increase economic
self-sufficiency, meet the skill requirements of employers, and
enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation.
2)Sets a three part formula for making general state allotments of
WIOA funds for youth, adult, and dislocated workers, as follows:
a) 33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative number
of unemployed individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in
the state, as compared to the total number of unemployed
AJR 46
Page 6
individuals in areas of substantial unemployment in all states;
b) 33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative excess
number of unemployed individuals in the state, as compared to the
total number of excess unemployed individuals in all states;
c) 33S% of each state's allotment is based on the relative number
of disadvantaged individuals in each state, as compared to the
total number of disadvantage youth/adults in all states.
Disadvantaged individuals are separately calculated for youth and
adult for their allotments.
3)Defines "area of substantial unemployment" as an area of sufficient
size and scope to sustain a program of workforce investment
activities, as specified, that has an average unemployment rate in
the most recent 12 months of at or above 6.5%.
4)Defines "disadvantaged youth" and "disadvantaged adult" as
individuals within the youth or adult age group with a household
income at or below the poverty line or 70% of lower living standard
income, as specified.
5)Defines "excess number" to mean the number of individuals that
represent the number of unemployed individuals that are in excess of
a 4.5% unemployed civilian workforce in the whole state or in areas
of substantial unemployment, whichever is higher.
AJR 46
Page 7
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. The purpose of this resolution is to
increase funding to California's most economically distressed
communities.
COMMENTS:
1)Overview of State WIOA: WIOA provides states with federal funding
for job training and employment investment activities, including
work incentive and employment training outreach programs. There are
three primary programs and funding streams, including Adult, Youth,
and Dislocated Worker. Distribution of the funds is based on a set
formula which includes specified economic and demographic data.
California's workforce development funding from the U.S. Department
of Labor has declined over the years from a high of $630 million in
2000-01 to $397 million in 2016-17. Federal law dictates that 85%
of Adult and Youth formula funds, and 60% of Dislocated Worker
formula funds, are distributed to local workforce development
boards. Funding for the state's activities is derived from the 15%
discretionary funds.
California received approximately $401 million for program year
2015-16, with $321.5 million being allocated to local workforce
development boards to provide services for adults, laid-off workers,
and youth, and $80.5 million remaining at the state-level for
program oversight and discretionary programs.
California's federal workforce dollars are overseen by the 51-member
California Workforce Development Board, of which 51% of the members
represent the private sector, as required by federal law. Board
activities are supported through a staff of 18 authorized positions
and is currently led by Executive Director Tim Rainey.
There are 48 local workforce development boards that plan for and
oversee the workforce system at the local and regional levels.
Local workforce boards are comprised of a range of workforce
stakeholders, a majority of which are required to be representatives
AJR 46
Page 8
from businesses. Each local workforce development board has one or
more One-Stop Centers, now referred to as America's Career Centers,
which provide access to career information, counseling, and funding
for education, training, and supportive services.
2)The California Economy in the Future: As California continues to
transition from the recession, businesses and workers face an
economy comprised of highly integrated industry sectors that are
also more geographically dispersed. Advances in technology and
processes are occurring more rapidly. This is resulting in
competitiveness being increasingly defined in terms of speed,
flexibility, specialization, and innovation.
Economists have identified nine key trends (see chart) that will
most influence the U.S. and California economies. Several of these
trends place new and demanding challenges on California's training
and workforce system.
---------------------------------------------------------------
| | Key Economic Trends Affecting the California Economy |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|1|Cities and regions will become more dominant economic |
| |players. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|2|Global networks will be supported through more advanced |
| |information and transportation technologies. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|3|Barriers to trade will continue to decline among both |
| |developed and emerging economies. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
AJR 46
Page 9
|4|The world's largest companies will increasingly be |
| |headquartered in emerging foreign markets. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|5|Global and more diversified markets will provide new |
| |opportunities for entrepreneurs and smaller size businesses. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|6|Scarcity and rising prices will increase pressure on the |
| |development and deployment of cleaner technologies. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|7|Deepening income inequality will result in costly outcomes, |
| |most adversely affecting women, minorities, immigrants, the |
| |disabled, and the formerly incarcerated, and thus require |
| |the diversion of public resources to address unemployment, |
| |poverty, and social unrest. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|8|The retirement of Boomers will place an even greater need |
| |for middle- and high-skilled workers. |
| | |
| | |
|-+-------------------------------------------------------------|
|9|The U.S workforce will be smaller, more ethnically |
| |diversified, and have educational backgrounds that are lower |
| |than many other developed economies. |
| | |
| | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
| Source: Researched and compiled from various sources by the |
| Assembly Committee on Jobs, Economic Development, and the |
| Economy|
| |
AJR 46
Page 10
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advances in information technology, advanced manufacturing, complex
logistical networks, and the need to have more environmentally
sustainable products are just a few of the new workforce realities.
Even entry-level workers will be expected to have important soft
skills, such as the ability to work in teams, actively listen,
communicate effectively with co-workers and bosses, and be able to
negotiate workplace needs in a positive manner. Unlike hard skills,
which are about a person's ability to perform a certain task or
activity, soft skills provide the tools necessary to learn and
advance in the state's continually evolving workplace environment.
The modern economy has also given rise to a growing need for smaller
businesses because of their ability to provide innovative
technologies and help other businesses access global markets. While
vital economic players, small businesses and entrepreneurs face
unique challenges in competing in an increasingly global and
interconnected marketplace. Programs and services which may have
been designed to serve large companies may need to be retooled to
better serve the nearly 90% of businesses that have less than 20
employees. These small and adaptable businesses will have an
inherent advantage in the post-recession economy, provided they are
able to obtain the skillsets necessary to run a successful business
and have access to appropriately trained workers.
Another key economic trend is the rising importance of regional
economies as one of the primary drivers of economic growth. The
economic foundation of many strong regional economies are
innovation-based industry clusters which have the ability to support
high-paying jobs, lucrative career ladders, and longer term job
stability. Economic researchers have shown that industry clusters
rise in areas where local universities, research labs, and competing
businesses within the same industry provide a critical mass of
skilled workers. Though the economic composition of regions may
differ in California, each region has strengths and weaknesses. The
effective identification and cultivation of these industry strengths
will factor heavily on the future economic success of California's
regional economies.
AJR 46
Page 11
All these changes are occurring at the same time that California and
the U.S. confront the social, cultural, and economic impacts of
demographic change. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2043 a
majority of the U.S. population will be comprised of people of
color. In 2014, people of color already the majority in California,
Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas, with another nine states were close
to 50%. The growing diversity within the workforce also represents
a significant generational shift of the predominantly white baby
boomers rapidly aging-out of workplace.
Many of these new market realities are already coming to fruition
and, for now, California's workforce is underprepared to meet these
demands. Decades of underinvestment in public education,
afterschool programs, and continuing education programs that feed
into career pathways to the state's dominant and emerging industry
sectors directly threaten the state's competitiveness. There are
still numerous unemployed and underemployed workers in California,
while simultaneously, there are businesses reporting that they are
unable to find qualified workers to fill empty positions. Strong
early education programs, career technology pathways, accessible
higher education, and effective and timely workforce development
programs are essential to equipping California workers with the
skillsets that are in demand.
2)Income Inequality and Disparity in Economic Opportunity:
California's overall economic growth and increase in jobs has
outpaced the U.S. in general, often ranking the state within the top
five states in terms of its economic condition. This success,
however, has not been consistent throughout the state with many
regions and certain population groups still experiencing
recession-related poor economic conditions.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's poverty rate is
16.4% as compared to a national rate of 15.6%. It is estimated that
nearly a quarter of California children (22.7%) are living in
households with annual incomes below the federal poverty line.
Contributing factors to these poverty rates include stagnate wage
rates, an increasing concentration of annual income among the
AJR 46
Page 12
highest income individuals, and differing job opportunities in the
post-recession economy.
A review of the most recent unemployment numbers (chart below)
illustrates this expanding pattern of economic disparity between
regions and population groups in California.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| California Unemployment June 2016 (not seasonally adjusted) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
| Employment | Unemployment | | Employment | Unemployment |
| Category | Rate | | Category | Rate |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|California | 5.7% | |California | 5.7% |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|Colusa County | 13.7% | |Blacks | 9.8% |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|Imperial County | 23.7% | |Hispanics | 7.0% |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|Los Angeles | 5.2% | |Whites | 5.5% |
|County | | | | |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|Orange County | 4.4% | |16 to 19 | 18.8% |
| | | |years olds | |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|Riverside | 6.7% | |20 to 24 | 9.6% |
|County | | |years olds | |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|San Bernardino | 6.4% | |Blacks 20 to | 14.9% |
|County | | |24 years old | |
|----------------+---------------+-+--------------+---------------|
|San Mateo | 3.3% | |Hispanics 20 | 9.8% |
|County | | |to 24 years | |
| | | |olds | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AJR 46
Page 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Tulare County | 10.8% | |Source: California |
| | | |Employment Development |
| | | |Department |
|----------------+---------------+-+------------------------------|
|Ventura County | 5.4% | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
While the state's unemployment rate for June 2016 (not seasonally
adjusted) was 5.7%, some areas of the state had lower rates, while
others were considerably higher. San Mateo County recorded the
lowest at 3.3% and Imperial County experienced the highest
unemployment rate at 23.7%. Inland areas generally reported
unemployment rates above the statewide average. As the chart above
shows, Tulare County's unemployment rate was 10.8% and Riverside
County was recorded as 6.7%. Coastal areas overall had lower rates
than the state average, with Orange County at 4.4%, and Ventura
County at 5.4%. Even densely populated and economically diverse
areas like Los Angeles County reported a June 2016 unemployment rate
of 5.2%.
Looking more specifically at different population groups, the chart
also shows the great discrepancies between the statewide rate and
key subgroups, including unemployment among Blacks and Hispanics
being 9.8% and 7.0% respectively. For the youngest members of the
workforce obtaining quality jobs remains a significant issue with
unemployment among 16 to 24 year olds being well above the state
average, ranging from 9.5% to 18.8%. In other words, one-in-five of
California's next generation of workers is unemployed.
Also worth noting is that the unemployment numbers most commonly
reported are based on the total number of unemployed individuals
that are estimated to be actively seeking work within a specified
survey period, also referred to as the U3 definition. Using a
AJR 46
Page 14
broader U.S. Department of Labor definition of unemployment (U6),
includes all unemployed individuals of the labor force, in addition
to marginally attached workers and involuntary part time workers;
California's unemployment rate for May 2016 shifts from 5.6% to
11.9%. Given that there are over 3 million unemployed workers that
not counted under the U3 definition, discouraged workers, who are
eligible to work but are not working, have become an increasingly
important public policy issue.
Just as the unemployment data shows the growing economic disparities
by geography, race/ethnicity, and age, research also confirms that a
greater percentage of total aggregate earnings are going to a
smaller group of individuals. According to the World Top Income
Database, pretax income among those with the highest 1% of income in
California comprised 9.82% of total income in 1980 and 25.31% in
2013. These findings could signal a larger issue about limits on
the state's long-term economic growth. A growing body of economic
studies show that large-scale income disparities correlate to
shorter periods of economic growth, whereas societies with lower
levels of income disparity have larger and longer-term periods of
growth.
3)Creating On-Ramps to Success: WIOA represents the most significant
shift in federal workforce policy in several decades. Among other
requirements, WIOA mandates that the state develop a plan for making
workforce investments, set goals, and report on their progress.
Future federal funding is dependent on the state meeting certain
plan-specific and national performance measures.
California's Unified Strategic Workforce Development Plan (State
Plan) outlines a comprehensive four-year strategy for investing
federal workforce training and employment service dollars in a
manner that aligns and coordinates six core WIOA funded programs.
The state goal (2017 through 2027) is to produce one million
"middle-skill" industry valued and recognized postsecondary
AJR 46
Page 15
credentials. In meeting this goal, the State Plan anticipates
doubling the number of people enrolled in apprenticeship programs.
Achieving these goals will be challenging due to the significant
number of California workers who are not currently ready to take on
middle-skill training. In 2012, there were 1.9 million unfilled
middle skill jobs. This number is expected to grow as one-third of
middle skill workers retire over the next ten years. This
middle-skill job gap is global, making workforce a competitive
advantage for states and regions that are capable of providing and
maintaining this important human resource.
Some of those who are least ready to begin middle-skill training are
individuals who have historically based barriers to employment,
including, but are not limited to, veterans, unskilled and
low-skilled workers, out-of-school youth, foster youth, long-term
unemployed, individuals with developmental and other disabilities,
formerly incarcerated individuals, farmworkers, and other
economically disadvantaged individuals. Local workforce boards are
developing strategies to address these challenges, but significant
funding is needed and author is concerned that the current state
allocation formula is insufficient to meet the need.
4)Funding under the WIOA Formula: Unemployment rates play a
significant role in WIOA state allotments, especially in Parts One
and Two. The three-part formula applies to WIOA Youth, Adult, and
Dislocated Worker programs, as follows:
AJR 46
Page 16
Part One: A comparison of the relative number of unemployed
individuals in areas with unemployment over 6.5% to that of all
states;
Part Two: A comparison of the relative number of excess
unemployed individuals (over 4.5%) in the state, as compared to
the total excess unemployed in all states;
Part Three: A comparison of the number of disadvantaged
individuals in the state to the total number in all states.
Funding for the three programs is substantially the same under the
Workforce Investment Act, the previous workforce development law,
and WIOA. Funding level do change between years based on total
funding available and the underlying employment conditions within
states, as compared to other states. Over the past few years,
California's comparative funding allotment has been increasing,
while other states like Colorado and Pennsylvania have had
measurable drops. This trend continued in federal fiscal year 2016
allocations. The chart below shows a comparison of select states by
funding stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
AJR 46
Page 17
| Comparison of State WIOA Allocations 2014 through 2016 |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
| | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent | Percent |
| | Change in | Change in | Change in | Change in | Change in | Change in |
| | Youth | Youth | Adult | Adult | Dislocated | Dislocated |
| | Allotments | Allotments | Allotments | Allotments | Workers | Workers |
| | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 | Allotments | Allotments |
| | | | | | 2014 to 2015 | 2015 to 2016 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Arkansas | 12.92 | 1.89 | 12.73 | 1.85 | 3.04 | -3.66 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|California | 1.33 | 6.69 | 1.25 | 6.60 | 4.25 | 3.40 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Colorado | -4.67 | 5.51 | -4.85 | -5.51 | -13.91 | -9.54 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Minnesota | -8.74 | 5.51 | -8.75 | 5.51 | -11.85 | 9.54 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|New Mexico | 13.49 | 17.48 | 13.19 | 17.21 | 29.17 | 18.61 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|New York | 0.22 | 3.60 | 0.16 | 3.56 | 2.49 | 9.54 |
| | | | | | | |
AJR 46
Page 18
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Pennsylvania | -7.54 | 4.30 | -7.91 | 4.72 | -13.72 | 1.60 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
|--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+--------------|
|Texas | 4.61 | 5.51 | 4.51 | 5.51 | -4.13 | 9.54 |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Source: U.S. Department of Labor Advisory 4/27/2015/Federal |
| Register 04/18/2016|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The funding formula also results in changes in allotments between
local board allotments. The California Workforce Association
evaluated the differences between the 2015 and 2016 local
allotments. The chart below displays the aggregated numbers for the
Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker funding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Workforce | Total | | Workforce | Total |
| Development | Difference | | Development | Difference |
| Boards |Between federal | | Boards | Between |
AJR 46
Page 19
| |funding in 2015 | | | federal |
| | and 2016 | | | funding in |
| | | | | 2015 and |
| | | | | 2016 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Alameda | -1.99% | |Marin | -7.05% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Anaheim City | -4.85% | |Mendocino | -2.41% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Contra Costa | -4.35% | |Merced | 5.63% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Foothill | 8.64% | |Monterey | 4.23% |
|(Pasadena) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Fresno | 4.96% | |Mother Lode | -5.57% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Golden Sierra | -7.21% | |Napa-Lake | -5.13% |
|(Placer, El | | | | |
|Dorado, Alpine) | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Humboldt | -6.61% | |NCC (4 Counties | 1.90% |
| | | |North of Sac) | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
AJR 46
Page 20
|Imperial | 17.59% | |NoRTEC (11 | -2.56% |
| | | |Northern | |
| | | |Counties) | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Kern, Inyo, Mono | 7.39% | |NOVA | 120.53% |
| | | |(Sunnyvale) | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Kings | 2.80% | |Oakland City | -9.13% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Los Angeles City | 0.14% | |Orange | -5.70% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Los Angeles | 1.44% | |Pacific Gateway | 2.93% |
|County | | |(Long Beach) | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Madera | 7.57% | |Richmond City | -10.20% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Riverside | -3.29% | |Santa Barbara | -0.73% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Sacramento | -4.44% | |Santa Cruz | 2.61% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Benito | 1.50% | |SELACO | 2.36% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
AJR 46
Page 21
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Bernardino | -7.52% | |Solano | -3.87% |
|City | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Bernardino | -4.28% | |Sonoma | -6.69% |
|County | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Diego | -6.00% | |South Bay - LA | 3.71% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Francisco | -7.03% | |Stanislaus | 1.89% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Joaquin | 0.35% | |Tulare | 7.54% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Jose - | -7.34% | |Ventura | -2.80% |
|Silicon Valley | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Luis Obispo | -6.24% | |Verdugo | 2.87% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|San Mateo | -100.00% | |Yolo | -1.85% |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|------------------+----------------+-+----------------+-------------|
|Santa Ana City | -9.89% | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
AJR 46
Page 22
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal funding formulas can be challenging to adjust. The
Committee and the author may wish to further clarify the purpose of
the proposed change in order to ensure that California is advocating
for more overall statewide funding and that this does not result in
individual areas of the state receiving less funding.
1)Amendments: Staff understands the author will offer amendments to
clarify that the provisions of this bill are designed to gain more
money for California communities and are not intended to suggest a
re-arrangement of existing funds. Staff recommends that the author
clarify which of the state funding allotments are included within
the recommendation and whether the recommendation applies to part
one, two, or three of the funding formulas described under Federal
Existing Law Number 2.
2)Related Legislation: Below is a list of the related bills.
a) AB 80 (Campos) Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys
and Men of Color: This bill would have established a 20-member
Interagency Task Force on the Status of Boys and Men of Color.
Issues to be addressed by the Task Force would include, but not
be limited to, employment and wealth creation, health and safety,
education, and juvenile justice. Status: Vetoed by the
Governor, 2015. Governor's Veto Message: How state policy can be
tailored to promote the well-being of boys and men of color is
profoundly important. These issues, however, are best addressed
through concrete actions, not another non-binding commission.
AJR 46
Page 23
The Legislature and the Administration are working on the
critical issues raised by this bill, such as the Local Control
Funding Formula, healthcare expansion and criminal justice
reform. Much more can be done, and I am committed to advancing
this work.
b) AB 288 (Holden) College and Career Pathways: This bill
authorizes the governing board of a community college district to
enter into a College and Career Access Pathways (CCAP)
partnership with the governing board of a school district within
its immediate service area, as specified, to offer or expand dual
enrollment opportunities for students who may not already be
college bound or who are underrepresented in higher education.
The goal of the agreements is to develop seamless pathways for
students from high school to community college for
career-technical education or preparation for transfer, improve
high school graduation rates, or help high school pupils achieve
college and career readiness. The bill includes specific
conditions which must be met prior to the adoption of such an
agreement. The authority in this measure sunsets on January 1,
2022. Status: Signed by the Governor, Chapter 618, Statutes of
2015.
c) AB 1270 (E. Garcia) California Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act: This bill aligns California statute with the
new requirements of the federal Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act of 2014. Status: Signed by the Governor,
Chapter 94, Statutes of 2015.
d) AB 2642 (E. Garcia, C. Garcia, Eggman, Gomez) Barriers to
Employment: This bill would have established the Breaking
Barriers to Employment Initiative for the purpose of assisting
individuals who have multiple barriers to employment to receive
AJR 46
Page 24
the remedial education and work readiness skills that will help
them to successfully participate in training, apprenticeship, or
employment opportunities that will lead to self-sufficiency and
economic stability. Status: Held in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations, 2016.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
City of Oakland
Opposition
None Received
Analysis Prepared by:Toni Symonds / J., E.D., & E. / (916) 319-2090
AJR 46
Page 25