BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: AB 2655
AUTHOR: Swanson
AMENDED: March 29, 2012
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: June 20, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Daniel Alvarez
SUBJECT : Community colleges: Inmate education programs,
computation of
apportionments.
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 2655
Page 2
and allow attendance hours generated by credit courses to
be funded at the credit rate, instead of the noncredit
funding rate. This allows community colleges to receive
full funding of courses offered in any correctional
facility. 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 2655
Page 3
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author's office,
this bill is intended to address difficulties that the
formerly incarcerated face due to a lack of education
and job skills. The author contends that existing law
creates disincentives for CCCs to offer credit courses
and career development courses in state prisons by not
reimbursing them at the rate appropriate for the type
of course offered. The author argues that research
shows that inmates receiving educational opportunities
are much less likely to recidivate, saving the state
millions of dollars per year.
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 $4,565 per FTES and
noncredit courses at $2,745 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 : According to the
Chancellor's Office of the California Community
Colleges, since 2008-09, the CCCs have been reduced by
$809 million, or 12 percent, and total enrollment has
gone down by 300,000 students at a time of increased
demand. Of this amount, $502 million was reduced this
year; in addition, colleges are anticipating an
unexpected revenue shortfall of roughly $100 million
because property tax and student fees are lower than
original estimates. 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
correctional 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)
typically is funded to provide inmate education in
state correctional facilities. However, as a result
AB 2655
Page 4
of an unallocated reduction to the CDCR's budget in
2009-10, the department implemented a $250 million in
rehabilitative programs, including academic,
vocational, substance abuse and other programs for
inmates and parolees. The 2011-12 Budget, included an
approximately $101 million one-time reduction in
funding. 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 216 (Swanson, 2011) was nearly identical to this
measure. This measure passed from this Committee on a
9-0 vote. AB 216 was held on the Senate Appropriations
suspense file.
AB 1702 (Swanson, 2010) was similar 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
AB 2655
Page 5
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
None on file.
OPPOSITION
None on file.