BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 216
AUTHOR: Swanson
INTRODUCED: January 31, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 22, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Community colleges: Inmate education programs,
apportionment
calculations.
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)
ANALYSIS
This bill waives the open course requirement for community
college courses offered in state correctional facilities
AB 216
Page 2
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.
STAFF COMMENTS
AB 216
Page 3
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) Would CCCs shift course offerings to the richer FTES
funded rates? As of March 2011, credit courses are
currently funded at the rate of $4,578 per FTES and
noncredit courses at $2,744 per FTES, a difference of
$1,834. And the CDCP rate per FTES is $3,232. Would
colleges begin to reclassify some existing noncredit
courses as credit, without a sufficient educational
basis?
3) CCC course offering priorities : Ongoing budget
shortfalls and resulting General Fund reductions
combined with increased student demand in part due to
unemployment and the overall economic slowdown has
left CCCs unable to provide course offerings to fully
meet student needs. According to CCC Chancellor Jack
Scott, approximately 140,000 students have been turned
away from CCCs, over 95 percent of all classes are at
capacity, an estimated 10,000-15,000 student are on
wait lists for courses. CCC reductions proposed in
the 2011-12 Budget will mean an anticipated 350,000
students will be turned away next year. In recent
years the Legislature has directed CCC in implementing
budget reductions to prioritize transfer, basic
skills, and career technical education courses. The
goal of this legislation is to encourage CCC course
offerings for inmates. The Committee may wish to
consider if encouraging inmate education is consistent
with the Legislature's priorities for CCC course
offerings.
4) Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
are typically funded to provide inmate education in
state correctional facilities. The proposed 2011-12
Budget, in response to an overall General Fund
shortfall of $26 billion, included an approximately $1
billion reduction or redirection to the CDCR budget.
Of this total, approximately $101 million is a
presumed reduction in rehabilitative programs,
AB 216
Page 4
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, for example in
2010-11 Budget approximately $250 million in
rehabilitative program funding was eliminated.
According to the CDCR Office of Correctional
Education, academic courses through the 12th grade are
available at 32 institutions, and 15 different
vocational trades are taught within CDCR facilities.
Would the offering of credit funded instruction by
community colleges make it easier for CDCR to scale
back its rehabilitative programs? Previous
legislation similar to this bill raised issues
surrounding the possible supplanting of CDCR's inmate
education effort. This bill contains language
specifying these provisions shall not be construed as
providing a source of funds to shift, supplant or
reduce the current CDCR efforts.
5) Prior Legislation .
AB 1702 (Swanson, 2010) was nearly identical
to this measure. This measure passed from this
Committee on an 8-0 vote. AB 1702 was held on the
Senate Appropriations suspense file.
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
community colleges to play a role in improving
instructional delivery to correctional inmates,
this bill as drafted appears to create
AB 216
Page 5
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
Advancement Project
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees, AFL-CIO
California School Employees Association
Community College League of California
Faculty Association of California Community Colleges
Greater Sacramento Urban League
Kern Community College District
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Los Angeles Community College District
Peralta Community College District
Rio Hondo Community College District
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District
West Kern Community College District
OPPOSITION
None on file.