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