BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1426
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Cooper |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 22, 2016 Hearing |
| |Date: June 29, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lynn Lorber and Olgalilia Ramirez |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: After school programs
NOTE: This bill has been amended to replace its contents and
this is the first time the bill is being heard in its current
form.
SUMMARY
This bill increases the per student daily and weekly rates for
the After School Education and Safety program, and eliminates
the requirement for the after school component of the program to
operate at least until 6 p.m. on regular schooldays.
BACKGROUND
Existing law establishes:
1) The After School Education and Safety (ASES) program,
consisting of before and after school academic enrichment.
Priority for funding is granted to schools where at least
50% of the students are eligible for free or reduced price
meals. ASES programs receive direct grants, where
attendance is projected and grants are funded up-front, in
three one-year increments.
(Education Code § 8482, 8482.4, and § 8482.5)
2) The maximum total direct grant awarded annually for an
after school program is $112,500 for each regular school
year for elementary schools and $150,000 for middle or
AB 1426 (Cooper) Page 2
of ?
junior high schools (based on a formula of $7.50 per
student per day of attendance, at a maximum of $37.50 per
student per week).
(EC § 8482.55 and § 8483.7)
Existing law continuously appropriates to the California
Department of Education $550 million from the General Fund for
the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program. (EC §
8483.5)
Existing law:
1) Establishes the minimum wage of $9.00 per hour on and
after July 1, 2014, and $10.00 per hour on and after January
1, 2016. (Labor Code § 1182.12)
2) Requires employers to provide at least one hour of paid
sick time for every 30 hours worked, or a minimum of three
days per year. (Labor Code § 246)
ANALYSIS
This bill increases the per student daily and weekly rates for
the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program, and
eliminates the requirement for the after school component of the
program to operate at least until 6 p.m. on regular schooldays.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Increases the dollar amounts for the per student per day
rate from $7.50 to $8.50, the per student per week rate
from $37.50 to $42.50 and the per student per day of staff
development rate from $ 7.50 to $8.50.
2) Requires the California Department of Education,
beginning on or before April 1, 2017, and every six months
thereafter, to report to the Legislature on progress in
implementing these rate changes, unless or until the rate
changes are fully implemented for all grantees.
3) Deletes the requirement for the after school component
of the program to operate at least until 6 p.m. on regular
schooldays.
STAFF COMMENTS
AB 1426 (Cooper) Page 3
of ?
1) Need for the bill. According to the Partnership for Child
and Youth, "While the costs, demands and expectations of
ASES programs have consistently increased, the funding has
remained stagnant for a decade. Since 2007, the California
Consumer Price Index has increased 19%, the state minimum
wage has increased 33%, and state law now requires
employers to offer 3 days of annual sick leave. Over the
same time period, the ASES daily rate of $7.50 per student
has not increased and there is no legal authority for a
cost-of-living adjustment, Under the current financing
structure extremely conservative site level budget
projections, including the local match, demonstrates that
programs during the current year will have to operate with
annual deficits of $10,000-15,000 or more per program
site."
2) Practical effect. The maximum total direct grant awarded
annually for an after school program is $112,500 for each
regular school year for elementary schools and $150,000 for
middle or junior high schools (based on a formula of $7.50
per student per day of attendance, at a maximum of $37.50
per student per week). This bill increases the daily rate
but keeps the maximum total grant awards at current levels,
thereby creating a new formula in relation to the maximum
grant. The result is that programs will receive the same
total funding, at a higher per student rate, which means
fewer students will be served. Advocates contend that,
without flexibility to reduce slots or an increase in
funding, many ASES programs will have no choice but to
close.
Is it the Legislature's desire to reduce slots for after school
programs? Will reductions in slots be across the board, or
will programs be affected differently? How will programs
determine which students will continue to be served?
3) Budget issue. Existing law requires the continuous
appropriation of $550 million from the General Fund to the
California Department of Education for the ASES program.
There have been several recent attempts to increase funding
for the ASES program in consideration of the increase in
the minimum wage as well as the requirement to provide paid
sick days for employees. According to advocates, the
AB 1426 (Cooper) Page 4
of ?
average cost of an after school program is $21 per student
per day, nearly three times the amount provided for in
statute. None of the attempts to provide additional
funding have been successful; the Budget Act of 2016 does
not provide an increased appropriation for the After School
Education and Safety (ASES) program.
Should the Legislature increase the daily rate at the expense of
slots when it has declined to provide an increase in
funding via the budget process?
4) Revenue from family fees. Existing law does not require
ASES programs to charge family fees or to conduct
individual eligibility determinations based on need or
income. It appears that ASES programs have the ability to
charge family fees; however, it is unlikely that many
programs charge fees, or reap significant fees, as ASES
programs serve schools where a minimum of 50% of the
students are eligible for free- or reduced-price meals, and
funding priority is given to programs serving the highest
percentages of students who are eligible for free and
reduced-price meals.
5) Subcommittee hearing. The Senate Education Subcommittee on
Community Schools held an informational hearing on March
25, 2015, featuring a panel on after school and
out-of-school programs. This panel provided testimony
relative to the effects the increases in minimum wage will
have on the statutory funding levels and caps on per
student daily rates for ASES programs (see Comment #1).
6) Related legislation. SB 645 (Hancock, 2016) appropriated to
the ASES program $54 million in the 2015-16 fiscal year,
and $72 million beginning in the 2016-17 fiscal year and
every year thereafter, and created a cost of living
adjustment linked to the California Consumer Price Index
beginning in the 2017-18 fiscal year. SB 645 was held in
the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 2663 (Cooper) continuously appropriated $73.3 million for the
ASES program beginning with the 2016-17 fiscal year and
adjusted the appropriation annually thereafter based on the
California Consumer Price Index. AB 2663 was held in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 1426 (Cooper) Page 5
of ?
AB 2615 (Wood, 2016) among other things, specifically authorizes
ASES programs to charge family fees. AB 2615 is pending in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 1567 (Campos, 2016) provides priority enrollment for
homeless and foster care youth priority after school
programs and prohibits a before and after program from
charging family fees for a child that the program knows to
be a homeless or foster care youth. AB 1567 is pending in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
California After School Coalition
LA's BEST
Partnership for Children and Youth
OPPOSITION
None received on the current version of this bill.
-- END --