BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 721
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 8, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 721 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 21, 2012
Policy Committee: Higher
EducationVote:8-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill establishes specified goals to guide budget and policy
decisions regarding postsecondary education and requires the
development of metrics to measure progress in meeting the goals.
Specifically, this bill:
1)States legislative intent that budget and policy decisions
regarding higher education generally adhere to the following
goals:
a) Improving student success.
b) Better aligning degrees and credentials with the state's
economic, workforce, and civic needs.
c) Ensuring the effective and efficient use of resources in
order to increase high-quality outcomes and maintain
affordability.
2)States legislative intent to (a) define appropriate metrics to
monitor progress toward meeting the above goals and (b)
establish interim targets for the metrics to be achieved by
2025.
3)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to establish a
working group, as specified, to develop a set of between six
and 12 metrics, derived from publicly available data sources,
for purposes of assessing the state's progress toward meeting
each of the above goals.
4)Requires the LAO, in consultation with the Department of
SB 721
Page 2
Finance, to submit the recommended metrics to the Legislature
and the governor by January 31, 2012, and states legislative
intent to adopt statewide metrics based on the LAO's
recommendations.
5)Requires the LAO to provide:
a) An annual statewide performance report, commencing
September 30, 2013, using each of the adopted metrics, and
to benchmark each metric against the appropriate interim
target.
b) Its own annual assessment, commencing January 1, 2014
and as specified, of progress toward achieving the above
goals.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Costs for the workgroup and for the LAO to produce the annual
report and an assessment of the segments' progress will be
absorbable.
2)To the extent the bill, as intended, does not add new
data-gathering duties on the segments, costs for UC, CSU, and
the CCC will be minor and absorbable.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the author, "The current fiscal climate
makes it especially important that we be clear about our
priorities for the use of the public funding we provide to our
institutions. If we are clear about the goals and the
measures, we can then be clearer about the budget and policy
decisions necessary to support our higher education system in
meeting our goals." This bill establishes three statewide
goals and a process for measuring how institutions are meeting
these goals through specific metrics.
2)Background . Nearly all states have some form of mandated
statewide accountability program for higher education.
California has relied upon segmental accountability,
reflecting the missions and functions outlined in the state's
Master Plan for Higher Education. However, none of these
efforts combine to measure how California's students perform
SB 721
Page 3
as a whole, nor does California engage in a statewide approach
to higher education policy planning.
The Legislature has been considering statewide higher
education goals for a decade, beginning with a study
commissioned by the Senate in 2002 that served as the basis
for several legislative efforts (see Prior Legislation below).
As part of its recent reports on higher education oversight,
the LAO has recommended that the Legislature and the
Administration establish a clear public agenda for higher
education, including specific and focused statewide goals that
could serve as the framework for an accountability system
designed to align higher education performance with the
state's needs. The most recent Master Plan review, as
reflected in ACR 184 (Ruskin), Chapter 163, Statues of 2010,
noted the lack of public policy goals based upon the outcomes
required to meet California's needs and found the
establishment of statewide goals will enable increased
accountability across the entire higher education system and
within segments.
3)Related Legislation .
a) In 2011, AB 2 (Portantino), which was held on
Suspense in Senate Appropriations, established an
accountability framework, including the biennial
collection of specified data and subsequent assessment of
the state postsecondary education system's progress in
meeting specified educational and economic goals.
b) AB 1901 (Ruskin)/Chapter 201 of 2010, codified the
findings and principles of the 2010 Review of the Master
Plan for Higher Education, and declared the Legislature's
intent to statutorily outline clear, concise, statewide
goals and outcomes for effective implementation of the
master plan and the expectation of the higher education
system as a whole to be accountable for attaining those
goals.
c) AB 218 (Portantino) of 2009, which was almost
identical to AB 2, was also held on Suspense in Senate
Appropriations.
d) SB 325 (Scott) of 2008, also similar to AB 2, was
vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated the bill
SB 721
Page 4
lacked incentives and consequences related to meeting any
state policy objectives that would be established.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081