BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2385
AUTHOR: John A. Perez
INTRODUCED: June 1, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 30, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : California Community College Nursing and Allied
Health
Pilot Programs
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Should the California Community Colleges (CCCs) Chancellor
administer a pilot program to encourage up to five campuses
statewide to develop innovative nursing and allied health
programs?
Should the CCCs be authorized to charge supplemental fees -
an amount in excess of the per-unit amount prescribed in
statute -- to students opting to enroll in innovative nursing
and allied health programs under the pilot program
established by this bill?
SUMMARY
This bill establishes the Pilot Program for Innovative
Nursing and Allied Health Care Profession Education at the
California Community Colleges to be administered by the CCC
Chancellor's Office. Under this program, up to five campuses
would be selected by the CCC Chancellor to offer pilot
programs that test innovative delivery models and expand
student capacity in health care occupations for which there
is a substantial labor market demand. Funding for these
pilot programs is intended to come from a combination of
sources including state apportionments, student fees
including supplemental fees authorized by this bill, federal
funds and private funds. This pilot program would sunset on
January 1, 2018.
BACKGROUND
AB 2385
Page 2
The CCCs provide instruction to about 1.5 million students at
109 colleges operated by 72 locally governed districts
throughout the state. The system offers academic and
occupational programs at the lower division (freshman and
sophomore) level, as well as recreational courses and
precollegiate basic skills instruction. The CCCs offer a
broad range of degrees, certificates, courses and transfer
majors including those in nursing and the allied health
professions (e.g. dental hygiene, dental assisting, medical
assistant, occupational therapy assistant, physical therapy
assistant, pharmacy technical, and sonography). In addition,
many colleges have established programs intended to promote
regional economic development. Current law requires CCCs to
charge each student a fee of $26 per unit effective with the
fall term of the 2009-10 academic year. (EC 70900; EC
76300)
ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a seven-year pilot program to be
administered by the CCC Chancellor's Office to encourage up
to five CCCs to establish innovative programs in areas which
prepare students for health occupations for which there is a
substantial labor market demand. Specifically, the bill:
1) Requires the CCC Chancellor to:
a) Develop, contingent upon obtaining resources,
a "request for application" (RFA) for CCCs to apply
to participate on or after the 2011-12 academic
year in this pilot program. The RFA would be
developed in collaboration with representatives
from education, labor, business, licensing and
credentialing entities and other appropriate
entities.
b) Select up to five campuses, ideally
geographically distributed throughout the state, to
participate in the pilot program. Existing
innovative programs currently underway that require
additional resources "to move to scale" would be
eligible to apply.
c) Pursue funding to help support the development
and delivery of the pilot program including but not
AB 2385
Page 3
limited to federal funds, private funds, employer
contributions and state and federal workforce
funds.
d) Collect data, evaluate the program and present
findings and recommendations to the Legislature by
January 1, 2017.
2) Requires participating campuses to:
a) Provide certificated training in health care
fields for which there is a demonstrated labor
shortage and documented demand from employers.
b) Demonstrate limited capacity or the need to
sustain or expand existing innovative programs.
c) Provide evidence of sufficient clinical sites.
d) Include high-quality curriculum delivery
models.
e) Have flexible delivery models (e.g. on-line or
distance learning; and intensive week-end, evening,
or summer courses.)
f) Enhance student success by providing student
support services to students in the pilot program
including but not limited to advisers, tutors,
mentors, financial assistance and internship
assistance.
g) Identify funding resources to support the
pilot program, as specified.
3) Authorizes participating campuses when selecting
students for admission to the pilot program to use the
diagnostic assessments and multicriteria screening
assessments authorized under current law for admission
to CCC nursing programs. (EC 78261 and EC 78261.5)
4) Authorizes participating campuses to collect
supplemental student fees from students in the program
to support the program. Such fees would have to be
based on a fee schedule approved by the CCC Chancellor
AB 2385
Page 4
at the time the campus applies to participate in the
pilot program. The bill specifies that any such fees
could not offset state apportionment funding, and part
or all of any CCC supplemental fee may be covered by
student financial aid for eligible students.
5) States legislative intent that the pilot program be
funded with a combination of state apportionment
funding, student fees, federal funds and private funds.
6) Includes a variety of findings and declarations.
7) Becomes inoperative on July 1, 2017, and sunsets on
January 1, 2018.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, the CCC
system offers educational programs in a variety of
allied health care professions and prepares
approximately 70% of California's registered nurses.
These are among the most costly CCC programs, which, in
recent years have been subjected to budget cuts.
Colleges have thus been forced to limit enrollment and
are struggling to keep pace with program demand.
2) Supplemental fee authority. Perhaps the most
significant feature of this bill is that it allows up to
five CCCs for a limited period of time to charge higher
student fees for enrollment in certain programs. Does
it make sense to have higher student fees, particularly
for higher cost programs and/or those with strong
student demand and strong labor market demand? There
currently exist a wide variety of differential fees
within California's public and private higher education
institutions.
For example, a student admitted in 2009-10 to a California
State University (CSU) School of Nursing to pursue a
Bachelor's of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) would pay
student fees of approximately $5,000 per year for each
of two years whereas this same student pursuing a BSN at
the University of California (UC) would pay an estimated
$10,000. An identical student pursing a BSN at Samuel
Merritt University in Oakland would pay approximately
$35,000 per year. A student pursuing an Associate
AB 2385
Page 5
Degree of Nursing at a CCC in 2010-11 is expected to pay
$26 per unit. Part-time nursing students at Samuel
Merritt University pay $1,504 per unit.
UC currently charges special fee rates for 12 professional
programs including nursing, medicine and pharmacy.
These special fees are substantially higher that the
fees paid by students in other programs.
In addition, both UC and CSU have accredited extension
programs through which students (matriculated and
nonmatriculated) may take credit courses; extension
course fees are substantially higher than university
fees as there is no state subsidy and students must pay
the full cost of delivering the course. In one advanced
degree nursing program offered by UC, students pay a
higher fee for a portion of the program offered through
extension, and then have their fees reduced when they
transition to the portion of the program offered through
the campus (and which is state subsidized.) Students in
a nearly identical program at a different UC campus pay
the state-subsidized fee level throughout the entire
program.
Staff notes that the author requests the bill be amended to
(1) strike all language authorizing participating CCCs
to impose a supplemental fee on students, and (2) expand
the ability of a pilot program to be funded in
combination with various sources including employer
based partnerships.
3) Developing the request for application (RFA) . This bill
requires the CCC Chancellor to develop an RFA for the
pilot program in collaboration with various entities,
including "business." Would it be more appropriate to
include other entities with a greater nexus to the
provision of health care or health-care related
education as part of this collaboration?
Staff recommends amendments to strike "business" and
include "hospitals and nursing organizations, and health
care employers." The author also requests the inclusion
of "regional occupational centers and programs."
4) Selection Criteria for a pilot college . Section 2 of
the bill [EC 78265 (f))] requires a participating CCC,
AB 2385
Page 6
among other things, to "include high quality curriculum
delivery models." Though innovation is critical,
curriculum standards determined by state licensing
entities may be inadvertently modified in order to
adhere to requirements of the pilot program approach.
Staff recommends amendments to clarify that pilot
programs shall not alter clinical units or hours
determined by the appropriate state licensing entities
that oversee each particular health occupation and that
existing approved curriculum is deemed to satisfy this.
5) Evaluation. The bill requires that the CCC Chancellor
conduct and submit an evaluation of this pilot to the
Legislature by January 1, 2017, (six months prior to the
program becoming inoperative). Does it make sense to
have the agency charged with administering the program
also responsible for conducting its evaluation? Would
it make more sense to have the Legislative Analyst's
Office rather than the CCC Chancellor report to the
Legislature on the efficacy of this program?
Staff recommends an amendment that the Chancellor's
Office contract with an external evaluator to conduct an
independent evaluation.
6) Staff also recommends the following technical/clarifying
amendments:
Page 6, line 12 [EC 78265 (f) (4)] delete:
"Proposals utilizing online and distance learning
courses" and, instead, insert: "All courses"
Page 6, line 16 [EC 78265 (f) (5)] delete "by"
and, instead, insert: "including by not limited to"
Page 6, line 26 [EC 78265 (f) (8)] delete:
"student financial aid"
1) Policy arguments.
Proponents argue that the community colleges
educate the majority of nurses in the state and are
well positioned to implement changes to attract a
diverse pool of candidates and address the state's
pressing workforce shortages with a pilot program
AB 2385
Page 7
that could be a cost-effective model for other
healthcare education programs.
Opponents contend that the inclusion
authorizing supplemental fees creates a situation
where academically qualified students may be
discriminated due to not having the means to pay
additional expenses. In addition, concerns that
existing program and licensure requirements may be
compromised in order to reduce time and increase
capacity of the allied health care professions.
SUPPORT
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
California Postsecondary Education Commission
OPPOSITION
California Nurses Association
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
American Nurses Association of California