BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2556
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 2556 (Hertzberg)
As Amended May 26, 2000
2/3 vote
LOCAL GOVERNMENT 6-3 APPROPRIATIONS 15-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Longville, Corbett, |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner, |
| |Wiggins, Thomson, | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| |Torlakson, Vincent | |Kuehl, Maldonado, Papan, |
| | | |Romero, Shelley, Thomson, |
| | | |Wesson, Wiggins, Wright |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:| Robert Pacheco, |Nays:|Campbell, Ackerman, |
| |Kaloogian, Thompson | |Ashburn, Brewer, Runner, |
| | | |Zettel |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Establishes a program to award planning, operational,
and capital grants to school districts, local government
agencies, and private or community organizations for the
co-location of academic, health, and social services to
children, families, and communities, and for the development of
joint-use community centers. Specifically, this bill :
1)Enacts the School and Community Partnerships Grant Program,
under which the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) would
award grants for locally-based efforts to coordinate and to
physically combine the efforts of a local educational agency
and at least four of the following entitities, with at least
one being a nongoverning entity: a) counties; b) cities; c)
libraries; d) park and recreation districts; e) philanthropic
organizations; f) nonprofit organizations; g) community-based
organizations; or, h) other organizations addressing the needs
of children, youth, families, and communities.
2)Provides that planning grants of up to $50,000 may be awarded
to school districts and local agencies or organizations
preparing to enter the operational phase of the grant program.
Recipients must contribute a match of half the amount
awarded.
3)Provides that operational funds of $100,000 may be awarded in
AB 2556
Page 2
the first year and $75,000 in the second and third years of
the operation of a proposed local program, with $50,000 per
year thereafter. Recipients must contribute a match of half
the amount awarded, and must retain the services of a
professional coordinator to facilitate collaboration and
fundraising.
4)Provides that capital funds up to $250,000 may be awarded for
the development of joint-use community centers on a school
site or in a community facility. Recipients must contribute a
match of half the amount awarded. The match will be
contributed in cash or as services or resources of comparable
value.
5)Requires that, to qualify for grants, service providers meet
at least two of the following qualifications: a) give
priority to pupils from low-income families; b) assist
families in securing support services for pupils; c) involve
teachers and parents or guardians in identifying a pupil's
service needs and in securing services to meet those needs; d)
qualify as
Medi-Cal providers; and, e) provide services to families such as
English as a second language courses, support in accessing
health and human services programs, and mentoring.
6)Specifies the academic, health, and social services that may
be provided by a qualifying program.
7)Requires that grant applicants provide descriptions of the
need for the program; the proposed program; provisions for
data collection and recordkeeping; program evaluation; and
governance structures and systems, as specified.
8)Provides that appropriated funds may be used for state-level
administration, including technical assistance.
9)Directs OPR, commencing in the year 2000 and each subsequent
year for which funding is available, to issue requests for
grant applications by November 1, to accept applications no
later than March 1, and to award grants on or before May 15.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriates $4 million from the General Fund to
the State Department of Education.
COMMENTS : The community center principle dates at least to the
AB 2556
Page 3
efforts of the industrial leader Charles Stewart Mott, who, in
the 1930s, offered funding to authorities in Flint, Michigan to
throw open that city's school facilities, late into the night
and through weekends and academic holidays, to all comers, young
and old. By the 1950s, Mott was designing and funding new
facilities intended for use as both schools and community
centers. The Flint approach was found to produce superior
student outcomes and was promoted throughout the United States
and Canada, and also overseas, and by the 1970s elaborate
community resource centers, comprising schools, had opened in
such cities as New Haven, Atlanta, Arlington, and Pontiac,
Michigan. In the early 1990s the initial Flint approach was
repeated in New York City, where public schools were designated
as "Beacon Centers" that welcomed students, families, service
providers, and community members to a clean, well-lighted place
during nonschool hours. The Beacon model and similar
Mott-inspired efforts recently have been replicated, with
evident success, in other U.S. cities, including San Francisco.
The author proposes to take the community center principle
statewide by establishing a grant program, administered by OPR,
to pay the cost of planning and operating full-service school
and community partnership collaboration programs. As defined by
the author, "school and community partnership collaboration" is
the integration of the education system with community-based
youth development and family services including medical and
social human services provided after school. The
community-based programs must meet the needs of children, youth,
and families, and be located either on school grounds or at
easily accessible locations in the vicinity of a school.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanne Wong / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0005079