BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2017
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2017 (McCarty) - As Amended April 7, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Higher Education | |13 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill creates the College Mental Health Services Program, a
matching grant program to enhance the provision of mental health
services on state college campuses. Specifically, this bill:
AB 2017
Page 2
1)Transfers $40 million annually from the Mental Health Services
Fund to the College Mental Health Services Trust Account,
which it establishes in the state Treasury as a continuously
appropriated fund for purposes of the grant program.
2)Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to, in
consultation with the California Mental Health Services
Authority (CalMHSA), create a grant program for public
community colleges, colleges, and universities to improve
access to mental health services and early identification or
intervention programs.
3)Authorizes grants to be awarded to a community college
district in the California Community College (CCC) system, the
California State University (CSU) system, or the University of
California (UC) system, and limits amounts to no more than
five million dollars ($5,000,000) per campus, per application.
4)Requires a dollar-for-dollar match of funds from the campus,
limits administrative costs to 5 percent for any grantee, and
prohibits the funding from being used to supplant existing
state or county funds utilized to provide mental health
services.
5)Requires CSU and CCC campuses to report to their respective
Chancellor's offices, and UC campuses to report to the Office
of the President on the use of grant funds, and requires
reports be submitted to DHCS.
AB 2017
Page 3
6)Sunsets the program on January 1, 2022.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)$40 million annually from the Mental Health Services Account
to fund the grant program.
2)Staff costs to DHCS of $240,000 for fiscal year 2016-17, and
$364,000 ongoing for the length of the program (Mental Health
Services Account).
3)Systems note potential difficulty in generating matching
funds. The UC notes in the last grant request for proposal
from CalMHSA for an similar program, upon which this one
appears to be modeled, CalMHSA insisted on a cash match,
requiring UC to put up "new dollars" as a match to receive
funding. Furthermore, the match was specific to prevention
dollars, which prevented UC from matching with funds being
used for staffing direct services. They note the majority of
UC's mental health budget is allocated to staffing direct
services, with only about 10% going to prevention, given the
immense demand for services. Thus, UC appears limited if a
cash match of new funds was required. However, if the
guidelines were more flexible, allowing for student fee
revenue or in-kind contributions to meet the matching
requirement, campuses could access the grant program.
The CCC notes note community colleges have limited ability to
meet the matching funds requirement due to statutory
restrictions on allocations of general fund expenditures. They
also most districts charge a health fee, which could be used
to provide a match if that is allowable source.
AB 2017
Page 4
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The author cites significant unmet need for mental
health services, and indicates college-aged students often do
not seek mental health services when they need them. Ensuring
access to mental health in our colleges will reduce stigma and
student success.
2)Background. Existing law establishes the Mental Health
Services Act (MHSA), enacted by voters in 2004 through
Proposition 63, to provide funds to counties to expand
services, develop innovative programs, and integrated service
plans for mentally ill children, adults, and seniors through a
1% income tax on personal income above $1 million. MHSA
addresses prevention, early intervention, and service needs,
as well as provided funding for infrastructure, technology,
and training needs for the community mental health system.
MHSA requires each county mental health department to prepare
and submit a three-year plan to DHCS that must be updated each
year, and approved by DHCS after review and comment by the
Commission. In their three-year plans, counties are required
to include a list of programs, identify how the funds will be
spent, and identify which populations will be served.
3)MHSA funding for education programs. In June 2007, the
Commission voted to approve the $60 million Student Mental
Health Initiative (SMHI), which allocated $34 million to
higher education institutions and $26 million for K-12
programs for a period of four years. The higher education
programs focused on three key strategic directions: training,
peer support activities, and suicide prevention. Any college,
district, multi-campus collaborative, or system within one of
the three California public higher education systems was
eligible and program applications were based on demonstrated
need that emphasized culturally relevant and appropriate
approaches. The SMHI was evaluated by RAND and demonstrated a
positive return on investment through greater student
AB 2017
Page 5
achievement.
4)CalMHSA. The CalMHSA was established by California counties
in June 2009 as a Joint Powers Authority responsible for
funding and implementing mental health services programs and
projects. CalMHSA is headed by a separate Board of Member
Counties and an Executive Committee comprised of officers and
statewide regional representatives. Among other
responsibilities, CalMHSA is responsible for implementation
and oversight of the SMHI.
5)Support. This bill is co-sponsored by the Steinberg Institute
and Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
(FACCC), and it is supported by a number of other groups.
Supporters note the mental health needs of college students
are great. Studies show one in four individuals lives with a
mental illness, meaning at any given moment a minimum of
750,000 students are suffering from depression, anxiety,
psychosis, or some other mental health condition. The
Steinberg Institute argues that establishing this program
would dramatically change the lives of these students by
providing funding to target improved linkages and increased
services for students.
6)Staff Comments. This bill would benefit from clarification on
a number of issues:
a) The MHSA has a variety of existing allocations. Where
within the MHSA structure does the $40 million come from?
b) This bill does not specify whether the continuously
appropriated fund it creates can fund the DHCS
administrative costs.
AB 2017
Page 6
c) It is unclear what activities can be supported by the
grant funds. This should be specified.
d) One provision of the bill notes "smaller colleges and
counties" can receive technical assistance. However,
counties are not specified as potential grant recipients.
e) It is unclear whether grants are for multiple years or
are annual awards.
f) The bill specifies grants funding guidelines that shall
include the "ability" of campuses to do a number of things.
It is unclear whether this list comprises the activities
the grant will fund, prerequisites the campus must meet, or
a scheme for prioritizing grants by need. Spelling each of
these aspects out more clearly, as appropriate, is
advisable.
g) This bill states that the scale of the program shall
determine the amount awarded but does not define scale. It
is unclear if campuses are competing based on their
full-time student population, total student population, or
some other measure.
h) This bill states that grants can only be awarded to
recipients who have demonstrated dollar-for-dollar matching
of funds from the campus. Allowable matching funds and the
availability of in-kind donations, if applicable, should be
specified.
i) It should be specified whether grants are made to each
campus or to the system-wide offices. This bill requires
the system-wide offices to do the reporting, but implies
AB 2017
Page 7
campuses are the grant recipients. This should be clarified
and the entity receiving the grant should submit the
report.
j) This bill has a sunset date but no evaluation. Should it
be evaluated before the sunset?
aa) Is there a justification for a continuous appropriation
for this program?
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081