BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 27, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          AB  
          1726 (Bonta) - As Amended March 1, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Higher Education               |Vote:|10 - 2       |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |Health                         |     |13 - 3       |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          Yes


          SUMMARY:


          This bill places specified requirements regarding the collection  
          of demographic data, by the state's public segments of  
          postsecondary education and by state health-related departments,  
          pertaining to tabulation categories of Native Hawaiian (NH),  
          Asian, and Pacific Islander (API) groups. Specifically, this  
          bill: 









                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  2






          1)Requires the Board of Governors (BOG) of the California  
            Community Colleges (CCC) and the Trustees of the California  
            State University (CSU), and requests the Regents of the  
            University of California (UC), on or after July 1, 2017, when  
            collecting demographic data on students for a report that  
            includes student admission, enrollment, completion, or  
            graduation rates, to use the following separate collection  
            categories and tabulations, in addition to the categories  
            required by existing law:


             a)   Major Asian groups, including, but not limited to,  
               Bangladeshi, Hmong, Indonesian, Malaysian, Pakistani, Sri  
               Lankan, Taiwanese, and Thai; and,

             b)   Major Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander groups,  
               including, but not limited to, Fijian and Tongan.


          2)Exempts UC from compliance with (1) with respect to UC  
            graduate or professional schools.


          3)Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) and the  
            Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), when collecting  
            patient demographic data for reports, on or after July 1,  
            2017, on the level of health care coverage, amount of health  
            care coverage, rates for major diseases, leading causes of  
            death per demographic, subcategories for leading causes of  
            death in California overall, pregnancy rates, and housing  
            numbers, to also collect and tabulate data for the groups in  
            (1)(a) and (1)(b).


          4)Requires all of the entities described in (1) and (2) to post  
            the information collected on their respective websites, but  
            requires the CCC, CSU, and UC to comply with the Family  
            Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and to observe criteria  








                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  3





            for ensuring statistical significance of data collected and  
            published.



          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)CCC. A similar bill last year would have required that the  
            additional demographic data be collected within 18 months  
            following release of the next census, using any additional NH  
            and API as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau. This provided  
            community college districts with sufficient lead time to make  
            the required changes within existing resources. Since AB 1726  
            requires the additional data collection almost immediately  
            districts will incur costs in the range of $8,000 to $12,000  
            on average to review their Student Basis Date Elements. These  
            would be one-time state reimbursable costs (GF-Prop 98) of  
            about $560,000 to $860,000. The Chancellor's Office would also  
            incur one-time GF costs, likely at least $150,000 to collect,  
            track and report the additional data, commencing by July 1,  
            2107.


          2)UC. The system already collects the additional data for  
            undergraduate students, as required in the bill.


          3)CSU. Minor absorbable costs.


          4)DPH will be impacted in several areas, incurring total costs  
            of about $600,000 for two years and $80,000 every 10 years  
            following release of a new census.


             a)   The Center for Health Statistics and Informatics would  
               need two additional research positions to include vital  
               records data currently collected but not reported and to  








                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  4





               ensure statistical reliability and privacy of individuals.  
               The workload includes the need for development of new  
               statistical coding of data to produce the strata specified  
               for the data files, and to ensure the integrity and quality  
               of the data produced.  In addition, staff will need to  
               determine if the disaggregated data produced is  
               statistically reliable and ensure that re-identification of  
               individuals was not possible for confidential data. This  
               work applies to County Health Status Profiles, Death Data  
               Trend Summaries, Birth Profiles and other statistical  
               tables derived from birth and death data prepared with  
               breakdowns by race/ethnicity. According to the department,  
               the analysis to prevent re-identification of individuals is  
               rigorous and becomes complex and time-consuming at the  
               level of detail proposed by this bill.



             b)   The California Reportable Disease Information Exchange  
               (CalREDIE) system would require additional staff time to  
               modify the system and update paper forms to collect the  
               additional race/ethnicity data.  The Division of  
               Communicable Disease Control (DCDC)  would require one  
               position over two years to modify the CalREDIE system, work  
               with the CalREDIE vendor to populate the race sub-category  
               information, update and publish the Electronic Laboratory  
               Reporting (ELR) specification guide to reflect that the  
               race sub-category information is required/mandatory,  
               canvass ELR submitters to comply with the new standard, and  
               update approximately 60 paper forms in order to comply with  
               the bill's.



             c)   The Office of AIDS (OA) would require on position to  
               lead the reprogramming of OA data systems and the  
               production of statistical reports with the required  
               categories (as allowed under HIV confidentiality laws) and  
               to provide consultation in the amendment of regulation. 








                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  5








             d)   The Response and Surveillance System for Childhood Lead  
               Exposures (RASSCLE) blood lead reporting system would  
               require one-half position ($80,000) initially), within 18  
               months of the 2020 census, and again within 18 months of  
               each succeeding census to update the data system. 



             e)   The Maternal Child and Adolescent Health (MCAH) program  
               data collection system would need to be updated for the  
               racial/ethnic populations not currently in the system and  
               required in the bill, which would then be added to reports  
               from the Adolescent Family Life Program (AFLP) that include  
               the type and amount of health care coverage, pregnancy  
               rates, and housing numbers.  One-time costs to update these  
               systems would range between $5,000 and $10,000.



          5)DHCS. Based on similar legislation last year, the department  
            would incur one-time costs of at least $150,000 to make  
            computer system upgrades. Current computer systems used to  
            manage enrollment and benefits for the Medi-Cal program do not  
            allow for the collection of demographic information at the  
            level of detail required in the bill. The computer systems  
            that would require modification include three state operated  
            systems and three county-operated systems used to enroll  
            individuals in Medi-Cal.
          


          COMMENTS:












                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  6






          1)Background. According to the California Commission on Asian  
            and Pacific Islander American Affairs', data disaggregation is  
            imperative for uncovering economic, educational, and social  
            disparities inherent not only in API communities, but in all  
            ethnic populations. The Commission finds that the need to  
            disaggregate data is often exemplified by the needs of  
            Southeast Asian American students; often categorized as  
            "Asian," their "lower academic achievement rates are  
            overshadowed by the stereotype that all Asian students excel  
            in academics." 


            According to information provided by the author's office, many  
            of the communities within the API population face similar  
            challenges in California, such as language barriers and  
            immigration; however, they differ on many issues.  This is  
            most evident with respect to education and public health,  
            where the outcomes of some of the largest API groups within  
            the API population raise the average outcome of the greater  
            API population as a whole. 





          2)Purpose. According to the author, "despite the diversity of  
            California's large API population, state agencies only  
            disaggregate demographic data for a few of the major API  
            groups.  By failing to measure a large portion of the API  
            population, California is unable to track the progress of the  
            most disadvantaged segments of that population."


            The author contends that without disaggregated data,  
            policymakers and researchers have to rely on data in the  
            aggregate as released by various state and local agencies.   
            Said data is not consistent and varies in different  
            jurisdictions.








                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  7










          3)Prior Legislation. AB 176 (Bonta) of 2015, a substantially  
            similar bill, was vetoed. The Governor, while acknowledging  
            the value of obtaining data a various aspect of identity,  
            stated, "I am wary of the ever growing desire to stratify.   
            Dividing people into ethnic or other subcategories may yield  
            more information, but not necessarily greater wisdom about  
            what actions should follow.  To focus just on ethnic identity  
            may not be enough."



            AB 1088 (Eng)/Chapter 689 of 2011, required the Department of  
            Industrial Relations and the Department of Fair Employment and  
            Housing to collect and tabulate data for additional major  
            Asian groups.

            AB 1737 (Eng) of 2010, which would have required certain state  
            agencies to use additional separate collection categories and  
            tabulations for major Native Hawaiian and API groups, was held  
            on this committee's Suspense file. 








          Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081












                                                                    AB 1726


                                                                    Page  8