BILL ANALYSIS AB 48 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 20, 2009 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Kevin De Leon, Chair AB 48 (Portantino and Niello) - As Amended: April 2, 2009 Policy Committee: Higher EducationVote: 8-0 Business and Professions 10-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill reestablishes, until January 1, 2016, state regulation of private postsecondary schools in California, with specified exemptions, by a bureau within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). This bill enacts the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (Act), and establishes the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (Bureau) with specified functions, including adopting relevant regulations, approving institutions to operate in California, maintaining a website of information for consumers, providing outreach to students, conducting on-site inspections of institutions, developing an enforcement program, and providing annual reports to the Legislature and governor. FISCAL EFFECT 1)The DCA's preliminary estimate indicates that the new bureau will require 31.5 positions in 2009-10, at a cost of $3.2 million, and 63 positions in 2010-11 and thereafter at cost of $8 million. The department expects to have a more detailed cost estimate in the near future. These costs will be supported by fees paid by the regulated schools, though start-up costs will likely come from a loan from another DCA bureau. 2)One-time appropriation of $580,000 from the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Administration Fund to the new Bureau. AB 48 Page 2 3)Absorbable costs to the Legislative Analyst's Office for an evaluation of the Act. SUMMARY CONTINUED This bill also: 1)Provides that any statutory or regulatory reference to the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Reform Act (Former Act) or former Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) shall be construed as referring to the Act and the Bureau. 2)Provides for a transition to the provisions of the Act, including: a) Stipulating that any institution approved to operate by the former Bureau on June 30, 2007, shall maintain that approval for three years after the expiration date of the approval. b) Requiring the Bureau, by February 1, 2010, to adopt emergency regulations conforming to the provisions of the Act, including repealing provisions no longer relevant. c) Continuing the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF) and providing for processing of STRF claims pending and received prior to July 1, 2007, or any claims received between July 1, 2007, and December 31, 2009. d) Establishing that any matter, except a STRF claim, submitted to the Former Bureau prior to July 1, 2007, shall remain pending, and with respect to deadlines, no time shall be deemed elapsed from July 1, 2007 through January 1, 2010. e) Providing that student complaints received from July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008, shall continue to be duly recorded and investigated by the Bureau. f) Providing that, for any claim or cause of action that arose prior to June 30, 2007, notwithstanding the inoperative status or repeal of the Former Act, final judgments and/or legal remedies available under the Former AB 48 Page 3 Act will be continued. 3)Exempts from the requirements of the Act and from Bureau oversight those institutions: a) Offering solely vocational or recreational educational programs. b) Offering programs sponsored by trade, business, professional, or fraternal organizations solely for that organization's members. c) Operated by the federal or state government or their subdivisions. d) Offering test preparation for examination required for admission to postsecondary institutions and continuing education or license and examination preparation where the institution or program is certified or sponsored by a government agency licensing persons in a particular field, a state-recognized professional licensing body, or a trade, business, or professional organization. e) Owned, controlled, operated and maintained by a church or religious organization and meeting several other specified requirements. f) Providing solely educational programs for total charges of $2,500 or less, with no part of the charges paid by state or federal student financial aid programs. g) Offering solely educational programs in law leading to a Juris Doctor, Master of Laws, Doctor of Jurisprudence degree or similar degrees in law. 4)Provides the Bureau with specified duties, including requiring the Bureau to: a) Adopt regulations by January 1, 2010, in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act, as necessary to implement the Act in accordance with existing law; develop and implement an enforcement program to implement the Act, including a plan for investigating complaints filed with the Bureau; and develop a program to proactively identify unlicensed institutions and take all appropriate legal AB 48 Page 4 action. b) Maintain a website with specified information provided by the institutions. c) Conduct outreach to secondary and postsecondary school students about how to make informed decisions when selecting an institution. d) Appoint an advisory committee consisting of representatives of institutions, student representatives, and employers who hire students. 5)Requires the Bureau, by January 1, 2011, to: a) Establish minimum operating standards for institutions, as specified. b) Establish processes: whereby institutions can seek an approval to operate and a renewal of that approval; that the Bureau will follow in approving or denying an application; and whereby an applicant whose application has been denied may appeal. Approvals to operate shall be for five years. c) Establish a process whereby an institution that is accredited may apply for and obtain approval to operate by means of accreditation, and requires that the term of the approval to operate coincide with the term of accreditation, and that the institution comply with all other applicable requirements of the Act. 6)Establishes specified fair business practices, including: a) Allowing institutions, when offering courses with a term of four months or less, to require payment of all tuition and fees on the first day of instruction; prohibiting an institution from requiring more than one term (up to four months) of advance payment at a time until 50% of coursework has been completed; providing exemptions from the aforementioned requirements for the purposes of federal and state financial aid payments; and allowing students, under certain conditions, to choose to pay all fees and tuition upon enrollment. AB 48 Page 5 b) Requiring that institutions providing private loan funding ensure that a student is not obligated for indebtedness that exceeds the total cost of the current term of enrollment. 7)Stipulates that students shall enroll solely by signing an enrollment agreement, and prescribes contents of the agreement and specifies other materials to be provided to the student, including a school catalog and a School Performance Fact Sheet. 8)Establishes specified requirements for student cancellations, withdrawals, and refunds. 9)Requires the Bureau to adopt regulations governing the administration and maintenance of the STRF, continuously appropriates STRF monies to the Bureau; and provides that the STRF balance may not exceed $25 million. 10)Requires each institution to annually report to the Bureau and to annually publish specified data, such as completion rates and job placement rates, in its School Performance Fact Sheet. 11)Establishes a series of as-yet-unspecified application and renewal fees and annual fees for all institutions that will vary according to an institution's annual revenues. 12)Establishes the processes and penalties regarding compliance and enforcement of the Act, including: a) Requiring the Bureau, when it has reason to believe that an institution is out of compliance, to conduct an investigation, and if the Bureau finds the institution has violations, to take appropriate action. b) Requiring the Bureau to perform announced and unannounced inspections of institutions. c) Requiring the Bureau to impose penalties, including mandating a specified timetable for remedying noncompliance, imposing fines, placing the institution on probation, or suspending or revoking approval, as deemed appropriate by the Bureau. AB 48 Page 6 d) Authorizing the Bureau, upon a finding that an institution has committed a violation, to take specified actions, including imposing an administrative fine of up to $10,000. e) Providing that the Bureau may bring an action for equitable relief for violations of the Act. f) Providing any individual who believes an institution has violated the Act or subsequent regulations may file a complaint with the Bureau and that the Bureau shall take action to verify the complaint and may take appropriate administrative enforcement action. g) Providing that the Bureau may not subject any person to a fine exceeding $50,000 for operating an institution without Bureau approval. 13)Requires the Bureau to provide annual progress updates to the Legislature, in the form of oversight hearings by the committee(s) with jurisdiction, and requires the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) to provide the Legislature and the Governor by July 1, 2012, a comprehensive review on the extent to which the Bureau has implemented the provisions of the Act, and the appropriateness of the exemptions provided in the Act. 14)Appropriates $580,000 from the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education Administration Fund to the Bureau for the purpose of funding five education administrator positions, and provides that these positions shall be included in the annual budget for the Bureau. COMMENTS 1)Private Postsecondary Education in California . Approximately 1,500 private postsecondary institutions had been approved by the Former Bureau to operate in California. This included approximately 1,200 vocational training schools and 300 branch satellites as well as 300 degree-granting institutions with an estimated student enrollment of approximately 400,000. The Former Bureau also registered approximately 700 private institutions providing short-term career/seminar training, continuing education, intensive English language programs, and license exam preparation courses. The author intends for this bill to reestablish state authority to regulate private AB 48 Page 7 postsecondary institutions and enforce the provisions of the Act. 2)History . A thorough history of the bills, hearings, laws, investigations and reports on the regulation of private postsecondary education in California was contained in the Senate Business and Professions Committee analysis of a similar bill from the 2007-08 legislative session, (SB 823, Perata), which detailed a 20-year troubled history, including reports and hearings that found California's oversight to be plagued with problems, lacking in leadership, governed by a confusing and ineffective law that was difficult to interpret, criticized in courts, and implemented by an entity with a poor reputation and inadequate funding. The most recent and most focused review of California's oversight was conducted by an administration and operations monitor, who issued a report in September 2005. The monitor summarized previous reviews and concluded that, "Nearly all of the problems previously identified continue to persist." The monitor summarized his own review by stating, "Significant problems were identified with nearly every significant component of the state's current regulatory program." 3)Recent Legislative History . In 2006, SB 1473 (Figueroa), which would have recast and reauthorized the Reform Act, was held on the Senate Appropriations' Suspense file. AB 2810 (Liu) of 2006, which would have extended the June 30, 2007 date on which the Reform Act became inoperative, was vetoed, with the governor arguing that overall reform be accomplished in 2007. The Reform Act and the BPPVE thus became inoperative on June 30th. AB 1525 (Cook), an urgency measure chaptered in July 2007, provided for a continuation of matters pending pursuant to the Reform Act through January 2008, in anticipation of a new regulatory scheme being enacted to take effect January 2008. A subsequent measure, SB 45 (Perata)/Chapter 635 of 2007, extended the provisions of AB 1525 until July 1, 2008. Last year AB 823 (Perata), which would have reestablished state regulation by a new bureau, similar to this bill, was vetoed, with the governor arguing for a clearer bill to strike what he considered the appropriate balance between protecting students and being fair to schools. 4)Major Problems With the Former Act and BPPVE . Among the problems cited by the independent monitor were the following: AB 48 Page 8 a) Fragmented Statutory Structure . The Former Act was created by the concurrent enactment of two separate bills, the Private Postsecondary and Vocational Reform Act (SB 190, Morgan) and the Maxine Waters School Reform and Student Protection Act (AB 1420, Waters), but the provisions of these bills were never fully reconciled. The Act contained rules governing both degree and non-degree granting institutions and separate articles with rules specific to degree and non-degree institutions, respectively. The Maxine Waters Act, which applied to some, but not all, non-degree granting institutions, was inserted as a separate article within the Reform Act. b) The BPPVE always ran a yearly operating deficit, and over time fully depleted a $5.3 million reserve that was carried over from its predecessor, the Council for Private and Postsecondary and Vocational Education. c) Provisions of the Act regarding tuition recovery required separate STRF accounts for degree and non-degree institutions. This led to the non-degree account being exhausted in 2003-04, after which the bureau paid claims with degree-account funds without statutory authority. d) The BPPVE never established a fully functional enforcement program, rarely conducted field investigations of complaints, never implemented a voluntary arbitration program, rarely issued citations or assessed fines, never placed an institution on probation, and did not review verify or audit annual reports submitted by institutions-25% of which were chronically delinquent in being submitted. e) The enforcement monitor was particularly critical of the BPPVE's practice of "leveraging" its approval authority, in lieu of initiating an enforcement action, to obtain compliance from institutions in cases where staff believed an institution was not in compliance with the Act, thus essentially circumventing due process requirements. f) In March 2005, the DCA completed a workload, staffing, and fee study for the bureau that demonstrated the bureau's revenues and costs were not aligned, but made no recommendations to address the bureau's fiscal issues. AB 48 Page 9 5)AB 48 attempts to address these and other issues raised by the monitor. The bill attempts to provide a clear and concise law for the Bureau to administer and enforce as well as provide annual reporting to the Legislature so the Bureau's progress and performance can be monitored. It should be noted that, while the bill outlines numerous specific student protections, a majority of oversight and enforcement activities are left to Bureau discretion and reliant upon Bureau adoption of implementing regulations. Until those regulations are implemented, it is difficult to know how well students will be protected and how adequately institutions will be monitored. In addition, the bill establishes a fee structure but has left blank fee amounts. The author has indicated intent to place fee amounts in statute and provide the Bureau with the authority to adjust fee amounts through regulation if necessary. The author indicates that he is working with DCA on specific fee amounts to be amended into the bill. 6)Exemptions . A major challenge is deciding which institutions need state oversight and which can be exempt, and specifically whether it is appropriate to exempt institutions based on their accreditation. Accreditation is a voluntary, non-governmental peer review process utilized for the purpose of determining academic quality of higher education institutions and programs. Under federal law, USDE is required to publish a list of recognized accrediting agencies deemed reliable authorities on the quality of education or training provided by their accredited institutions. Only those institutions accredited by a USDE-recognized accrediting organization are eligible to participate in the federal student financial assistance programs. The USDE recognizes both regional and national accrediting agencies. At the time of its sunset, the Former Act provided a full exemption for institutions accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), one of six regional accrediting agencies. The Former Act also partially exempted non-WASC regionally accredited institutions from the Bureau's approval process. (Last year's vetoed attempt at establishing a new bureau, SB 823 (Perata), would have exempted from regulation both WASC and non-WASC regionally accredited institutions.) Currently, this bill allows institutions accredited by a United State Department of Education (USDE)-approved accrediting agency to be granted approval to operate via their accreditation, but does not AB 48 Page 10 provide full exemptions for these institutions based on their accreditation. A principal argument for not exempting accredited institutions is that the Bureau's roles and responsibilities are complementary to those of accrediting agencies-the Bureau provides for operating standards and student protections, while the accrediting agency generally reviews educational program content. Additionally, accrediting agencies have no legal control over educational institutions or programs. Proponents of exempting accredited institutions argue that such institutions are subject to more rigorous oversight by USDE and the accrediting agency, and the Bureau's efforts should be focused on institutions that are not being fully reviewed by any other accrediting or regulatory agency. Several reports previously prepared on the issue of whether or not accrediting agencies provide a sufficient level of protection in the state's interest in ensuring that students are treated fairly have not definitively answered this question. The author has indicated intent to continue examining the accreditation process in order to determine which institutions should be granted an exemption based on accreditation. Both WASC and the Accredited Out-of-State Colleges and Universities in California, which represents many of the non-WASC accredited institutions, are opposed to the bill absent amendments exempting their accredited institutions. 7)Consumers Union (CU) and the Consumer Federation of California have taken "oppose unless amended" positions. CU argues that no other state is known to lodge the regulation of trade institutions in a consumer/business agency rather than an education agency. CU believes that DCA's failed regulation of the Former Bureau highlight the need to move the regulation to an education agency. CU believes that institutions should not be granted approval to operate by means of accreditation, that many accredited institutions have perpetrated some of the most egregious examples of fraud and deception. CU believes the disclosures to students are inadequate, particularly regarding job placement and transferability of credits earned. CU argues that the Bureau's enforcement authority is confusing and potentially too constraining. The Center for Public Interest Law (CPIL) has taken an "oppose unless amended" position and generally agrees with the comments of CU. AB 48 Page 11 8)California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools (CAPPS) has taken a "support if amended" position and have submitted several amendments to the author, including removing the preservation clause for the private right of action under the Former Act, removing the requirement that institutions post specific information on their websites, and removing the requirement for a 3-day cooling off period before a student may sign an enrollment agreement, among other suggested amendments. Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081