BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 1702
AUTHOR: Swanson
AMENDED: May 28, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Community colleges: Inmate education programs,
apportionment
calculations.
KEY POLICY ISSUE
Should the community colleges be able to claim credit funding
for credit instruction provided to inmates in correctional
facilities, including state correctional facilities?
SUMMARY
This bill waives the open course requirement for community
college courses offered in state correctional facilities and
allow attendance hours generated by credit courses to be
funded at the credit rate, instead of the noncredit funding
rate.
BACKGROUND
Current law authorizes a community college district to claim
state apportionment for classes it provides to inmates of any
city, county, or city and county jail, road camp, farm for
adults, or federal correctional facility (not for inmates in
state correctional facilities). Under current law the
attendance hours generated by these classes, whether credit
or noncredit, are counted as noncredit attendance hours for
apportionment purposes. (Education Code 84810.5)
Classes provided to inmates of state correctional facilities
are not currently authorized for state apportionment. In
addition, no funds provided for inmate education programs can
be considered as part of the base revenues for community
college districts in computing apportionments. (EC
84810.5)
AB 1702
Page 2
ANALYSIS
This bill waives the open course requirement for community
college courses offered in state correctional facilities and
allow attendance hours generated by credit courses to be
funded at the credit rate, instead of the noncredit funding
rate. More specifically, the bill:
1) Waives open course provisions for any local community
college district governing board that provides classes
for inmates in state correctional facilities.
2) Expands the existing authority of local community
college governing boards to claim full-time equivalent
student (FTES) for inmate education programs to include
FTES generated in state correctional facilities.
3) Prohibits the use of the waiver of open course
provisions granted in the bill in any other context or
situation.
4) Authorizes attendance hours generated in community
college courses offered in state, city, county or
federal correctional facilities to be funded at either:
(a) the marginal credit rate for credit courses, (b) the
noncredit rate for noncredit courses, or (c) the career
development and college preparation (CDCP) rate, as
specified.
5) Deletes the prohibition on the inclusion of funds
received for inmate education programs in the base
revenue computations for community college district
apportionments.
6) Prohibits community colleges from claiming state funding
for attendance hours generated in any inmate education
class for which the college receives full compensation
for direct education costs or through contract or
instructional agreement from another public agency or
private source, and requires the offset of state aid for
partial compensation received from any such source.
7) Declares that the bill does not provide a source of
funds to shift, supplant or reduce costs incurred by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in
providing inmate education.
AB 1702
Page 3
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
this bill is intended to "remove the current barriers
and disincentives to CCC coursework in correctional
facilities to help address the inadequate educational
attainment that leads to the state's high incarceration
and recidivism rates."
2) Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is
funded to provide inmate education in state correctional
facilities. The 2009-10 Budget, in response to an
overall General Fund shortfall of $40 billion, included
a $1.2 billion unallocated reduction to the CDCR budget.
In response, CDCR implemented a $250 million reduction
in rehabilitative programs, including academic,
vocational, substance abuse and other programs for
inmates and parolees. Furthermore, in previous years,
when the CDCR has been squeezed by increasing custody
and health care costs of inmates, the department
typically scales back rehabilitative program offerings.
Would the offering of credit funded instruction by
community colleges make it easier for CDCR to scale back
its rehabilitative programs?
3) Would CCCs shift course offerings to the richer FTES
funded rates? Credit courses are currently funded at
the rate of $4,564 per FTES and noncredit courses at
$2,744 per FTES, a difference of $1,820. And the CDCP
rate per FTES is $3,237. Would colleges begin to
reclassify some existing noncredit courses as credit,
without a sufficient educational basis?
4) Prior Legislation .
SB 574 (Hancock, 2009) was similar to this
measure. It passed from this Committee on a 9-0
vote. SB 574 was ultimately held on the Senate
Appropriations suspense file.
SB 413 (Scott, 2008) was nearly identical to
SB 574. SB 413 was vetoed by the Governor whose
veto message read in pertinent part:
This bill is substantively similar to a bill I
previously vetoed in a prior legislative session.
While I respect the author's attempt to get
AB 1702
Page 4
community colleges to play a role in improving
instructional delivery to correctional inmates,
this bill as drafted appears to create
inappropriate fiscal incentives for community
colleges, state prisons, local correctional
agencies, and other contracting entities that may
lead to supplanting current funding provided
through the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation.
SUPPORT
California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office
Community College League of California
Kern Community College District
Los Angeles CCD
Peralta CCD
Rio Hondo CCD
San Jose-Evergreen CCD
West Kern CCD
OPPOSITION
None received.