BILL ANALYSIS
SB 798
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 16, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 798 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: January 11, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 31-6
SUBJECT : Before and after school programs
SUMMARY : Specifies that in any fiscal year in which the total
amount appropriated for the federal 21st Century Community
Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Program for that fiscal year
exceeds the total amount appropriated for the 2008-09 fiscal
year (FY), the excess amount shall be allocated on a priority
basis for direct grants to community learning centers as
follows:
1)35% to community learning centers serving high school pupils;
2)50% to community learning centers serving elementary and
middle school pupils; and,
3)15% to summer programs serving elementary and middle school
pupils.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the After School Education and Safety (ASES)
Program through the 2002 voter approved initiative,
Proposition 49, which funds the establishment of local after
school education and enrichment programs, which are created
through partnerships between schools and local community
resources to provide literacy, academic enrichment and safe
constructive alternatives for students in kindergarten through
ninth grade. (Education Code (EC) 8482-8484.6)
2)The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act authorizes funding
for the 21st CCLC program. Specifies that the requirements of
the ASES program apply to the 21st CCLC program with specified
exceptions. (EC 8484.7)
3)Establishes the 21st Century High School After School Safety
and Enrichment for Teens (High School ASSETs) program and
specifies that the purpose of the program is to create
SB 798
Page 2
incentives for establishing locally driven after school
enrichment programs that partner schools and communities to
provide academic support and safe, constructive alternatives
for high school pupils in the hours after the regular
schoolday, and that may assist pupils in passing the high
school exit exam. (EC 8421)
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill directs federal funds and therefore has no
new costs.
COMMENTS : 21st CCLC program . The state receives approximately
$130 million annually in federal funds for the 21st CCLC
program, which provides funding for before and after school
activities to pupils in kindergarten through grade 12. The
state has chosen to implement this program almost identical to
the state's ASES program, passed by voters through Proposition
49 in 2002, which provides almost $550 million for before and
after school programs for 400,000 students in kindergarten
through grade 9. Existing law (EC 8484.8) specifies that 40% of
the 21st CCLC funds shall be allocated for programs serving
elementary and middle school pupils and 50% shall be allocated
for direct grants to community learning centers serving high
school pupils. The remaining 10% is used for direct grants to
community learning center programs to provide equitable access
and to provide family literacy services. Per pupil rates for
serving elementary and middle school pupils is $7.50 per day for
after school programs and $5 per day for before school programs.
Elementary and middle school programs receive grants up to a
maximum of $225,000 and $300,000, respectively, per year and
must provide academic assistance, educational enrichment and
family literacy services. Federal requirements give priority
for funding to programs serving Title 1 kids (low-income kids
eligible for free and reduced-priced meals). The 21st Century
High School ASSETs program provides grants between $50,000 to
$250,000 per school site based on $10 per student per day, and
requires the following elements:
1)An academic assistance element that includes at least one of
the following: preparation for the high school exist exam,
tutoring, homework assistance, or college preparation; and,
2)An enrichment element that may include, but is not limited to,
community service, career and technical education, job
readiness, opportunities for mentoring and tutoring younger
SB 798
Page 3
pupils, service learning, arts, computer and technology
training, physical fitness and recreation activities.
This bill proposes to, for any funds over the fiscal year
2008-09 allocation, change the allocation formula of federal
21st CCLC funds as follows:
a) High school programs: from 50% to 35%;
b) Elementary and middle school programs: from 40% to 50%;
and,
c) New summer program set aside: 15%.
The author states that "the original implementation plan did not
accommodate the range of needs throughout the year, including
services during periods when the school is closed (e.g.,
vacation periods, intersession). Currently children can receive
substantial academic and enrichment benefits during the 9 months
of the regular school year, then lose ground during the 2 -3
months of summer vacation."
The following chart provided by the CDE shows the amount of
funding the state has received over the last four years:
----------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2006-07 | 2007-08 | 2008-09 | 2009-10 |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Federal | $131.3 | $127.7 | $132.4 | $130.9 |
|Allocation | million | million | million | million |
|------------+------------+------------+------------+------------|
|Grant | $79.8 | $127.3 | $149.7 | $150.7 |
|Awards | million | million | million* | million* |
----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| *increased using carry over funds |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Due to prior unallocated amounts, the program currently has
almost $90 million in carryover dollars. The CDE indicates that
over the last couple of years, it has had to use carryover funds
to backfill demand in excess of the annual allocations, and
projects spending down the carryover funds within the next few
years. 21st CCLC funds are currently allocated according to the
SB 798
Page 4
number of Title 1 students. There is a proposal in Congress to
change the allocation to a competitive grant, which, if enacted,
will give the state no guarantee that it will continue to
receive current level of funding.
Need for Summer programs . The sponsor, the Partnership for
Children and Youth, states that demand for high school programs
have decreased while fewer summer programs are available due to
budget cuts. The Partnership states, "Research is very clear
about the negative impacts that occur when children lack
learning opportunities during the months when they are not in
school. This phenomenon called 'Summer Learning Loss' or
'Summer Slide' disproportionately affects low-income children
and is also cumulative over time. Some researchers attribute as
much as 2/3 of the achievement gap to a lack of summer learning
opportunities. In addition, research also shows that children
gain weight more rapidly in the summer if they don't have access
to organized recreational or physical activity programs. Nearly
all children enrolled in publicly funded after school programs
also receive free or reduced price meals during the school year,
and without those meals in the summer, many are receiving
lower-quality foods that are causing weight gain."
There is no statewide data available on the number and adequacy
of summer programs. The CDE does not require local educational
agencies (LEAs) to report this data. A 2009 survey by Public
Agenda found that 59% of parents either did not enroll their
child in a summer program in 2009 or enrolled their child in a
summer program for less than half the summer. The survey
results found that finances and lack of available programs were
factors that prevented participation in summer programs. Budget
cuts over the last few years have likely decreased availability
of summer programs. The CDE recently released results from a
survey that shows that 26% of LEAs reported cutting summer
schools.
21st CCLC funds are authorized to be used for summer programs.
Grantees can request a supplemental grant that can be used for
summer, intersession or vacation periods. Summer school
programs can also be funded through Supplemental Instruction
funds of $335 million (FY 2010-11), but the FY 2009-10 budget
agreement gave LEAs the flexibility to use funds from 39
categorical programs for any educational purposes for FY 2008-09
through 2012-13 (SBX3 4 (Ducheny), Chapter 12, Statutes of the
2009-10 Third Extraordinary Session). Summer school fund is
SB 798
Page 5
part of the flexibility authorization and in a recent
Legislative Analyst's Office survey, 60% of district respondents
indicated that they had shifted supplemental funds for other
uses.
Using any amount over the $132.4 million received by the state
in 2008-09, this bill proposes to redirect 15% of the funding
for high school programs to summer programs. The CDE does not
have data readily available on the number of eligible
applications that have not received funding. While it is more
difficult to recruit high school pupils to attend after school
programs, the 21st CCLC is the only source of funding for high
schools; ASES serves students up to the ninth grade. The
Committee should consider whether funds for high school programs
should be diverted for other uses. Rather than establish a new
formula for a marginal amount of funds, the author may wish to
consider simplifying the bill by setting aside 15% of increased
funds over the FY 2008-09 level for summer programs and
eliminating the formula for elementary/middle and high schools.
The remaining amount would be added to the base federal
appropriation and allocated according to existing law.
The bill does not specify how the summer programs funds will be
allocated. Supplemental grants can be used for summer programs,
but programs during intersession and vacations are also
authorized uses. The author may wish to consider clarifying the
process for allocating summer program funds.
The California Right to Life Committee, Inc. opposes the bill
and states, "This bill is a drain on the economy, a meaningless
environment for our children and merely provides money in the
pockets of professional babysitters. This is not education;
this is behavior modification and it is a blemish on the face of
education in our state."
Technical amendment . The bill references an appropriation but
does not specify which appropriation. Staff recommends
clarifying that the appropriation cited in the bill is the
federal appropriation.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Partnership for Children and Youth (sponsor)
SB 798
Page 6
California Alliance of Boys and Girls Clubs
California School-Age Consortium
Children Now
League of California Afterschool Providers
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Sacramento City Council member Sandy Sheedy
Woodcraft Rangers (Los Angeles)
Opposition
California Right to Life Committee, Inc.
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087