|
Preface
Introduction
by David B. Oppenheimer
Profiles by Peter Y. Sussman
Law
and Policy Discussion Affirmative Action: Still
Fair, Still Necessary
Acknowledgements
Programs Under Attack
Valuable programs developed in California to provide
equal opportunity for women and minorities in education,
employment and contracting are currently threatened
with elimination. Gov. Wilson announced late in 1997
a proposal to eradicate or severely limit these programs
and is seeking legislative approval to do so.
Below are descriptions of these programs, including
the geographic area(s) and the people they serve and
the California statutes under which they are authorized.
EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Minority Health Professions Education Foundation
(Health and Safety Code §§ 128330-128445)1
This foundation was established by statute in 1987
to solicit and receive funds from public and private
organizations to provide scholarships and loans to black,
Hispanic, Native American and other underrepresented
minority students who are accepted to or enrolled in
schools of medicine, dentistry, nursing or other health
professions. In return, the students must agree to serve
for a specified period in areas of the state that lack
adequate primary health care services. A wealth of studies
have documented the link between the training of minority
doctors and the delivery of health care services to
minority communities. On average, black physicians care
for nearly six times as many black patients and Hispanic
physicians care for nearly three times as many Hispanic
patients as other physicians.2 Nearly 40% of minority
physicians practice in deprived areas; less than 10%
of non-minorities do.3
The foundation solicits contributions, disseminates
applications and information to minority groups and
encourages private sector institutions such as hospitals,
community clinics and other health agencies to identify
and provide educational experiences to students from
historically underrepresented groups. The foundation
is run through the Department of Statewide Health Planning
and Development.
The foundation is responsible for both the Minority
Health Professions Education Fund and the Registered
Nurse Education Fund which is partially funded by the
renewal fees from nursing licenses. Eligible nursing
studentas may receive scholarships, educational loans
and loan repayment programs. The Geriatric Nurse Practitioner
and Clinical Nurse Specialist Scholarship Program is
supposed to be run out of the Minority Health Education
Professions Foundation, but is currently not funded.
Every year, the Minority Health Professions Education
Foundation’s awards go to approximately 130 students
in the health professions. As of June 1996, the foundation
had provided a total of more than $3.5 million in scholarships
and/or loan repayment to more than 800 nursing students,
professional nurses and allied health care students
throughout the state. At least 65%of the scholarship
awards have gone to women. Ethnic breakdowns are not
available.
Attempts are in the works to remove the foundation’s
focus on underrepresented minorities. Indeed, the foundation
has already begun to call itself the Health Professions
Education Foundation, dropping use of the word “Minority”
from its statutory name.
California Academic Partnership Program
(Education Code §§ 11003-11007)
CAPP was established in 1984 to increase the number
of high school students going to college, especially
from segments of the population who are underrepresented
in higher education. Although the program is designed
to help prepare all students for college, it gives priority
to schools either “with low student participation
in institutions of post secondary education or with
a concentration of students from groups which are underrepresented
in post secondary education.” State Senator Teresa
Hughes, author of the enabling legislation, has observed
that “Latino, African American and American Indian
students make up 79 percent of the students in our lowest
performing high schools, yet they make up only 17 percent
of the student body in our top performing high schools.
For California to continue to prosper socially and economically,
we must make changes to provide quality educational
opportunities for all students.”
Administered by the California State University system
with a budget of about $1 million a year, the program
helps provide middle and high school students with the
readiness, motivation, and technical skills needed to
advance to higher education. The program provides grants
to schools to develop partnerships with businesses,
public educational institutions, and community organizations.
Some of the assistance comes from role models in the
business world; other comes in the form of curriculum
enrichment in subjects required for college admission.
The average single grant is about $250,000 for a 3-5
year period. Only schools where very few students matriculate
to college receive CAPP grants. Schools must provide
measurable objectives for their partnership programs,
such as an increase in SAT/ACT scores, or an increase
in matriculation to colleges.
Since its founding, CAPP has sponsored more than 50
partnerships to improve the quality and effectiveness
of K-12 instruction, at a cumulative cost of $11 million.
More than 145 institutions and 3000 higher education
faculty members from all major regions of the state
have participated. In all, the program has served more
than 130,000 K-12 students, with many more receiving
indirect benefits from the curriculum and teaching strategies
developed in CAPP-supported programs.
Community College Extended Opportunity Programs
and Services
(Education Code §§ 69640-69656)
EOPS targets community college students who are affected
by “language, social and economic disadvantages,”
with the aim of increasing their rates of matriculation,
graduation, academic success and transfer to four-year
institutions. As part of the program, the community
colleges’ Board of Governors is required to issue
regulations that “strive to assist community colleges
to meet student and employee affirmative action objectives.”
The program is designed “to ensure that the colleges
strive to achieve and maintain a racial, ethnic, and
gender composition among income eligible students served
which matches the racial, ethnic, and gender composition
by income group of eighteen years and above who live
in the college’s service area.” The implementing
regulations specify that “priority in outreach
and recruitment services shall be directed towards correcting
the greatest underrepresentation among students served.”
Begun in 1969, EOPS encourages local community colleges
to implement programs directed at identifying students
in target groups, to increase the number of eligible
students served, and to assist those students in achieving
their educational objectives through supplemental programs
and financial services such as loans and grants. Each
program provides individual counseling on financial
aid and academics, financial help for buying books,
and support services for single mothers.
The program is funded through the community colleges’
Board of Governors and administered at individual community
colleges through an EOPS director. In 1996-97, EOPS
served 83,171 students. It has a 1997-98 budget of $53
million. A study by the Chancellor’s office has
shown that EOPS students are much more likely to graduate
from four-year colleges and universities than their
non-EOPS counterparts.
American Indian Early Childhood Education Program
(Education Code §§ 52060-52065)
The Legislature established the Early Childhood Education
Program in 1972 “to improve the educational accomplishments
of American Indian pupils in the rural educational systems
in California.” The program was to design projects
for pre-K and K-4 “to develop and test educational
models that increase competence in reading and mathematics.”
The projects emphasize parent-community involvement
in all phases.
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction apportions
funds to applicant school districts having “a
concentration of 10 percent or more of American Indian
pupils,” for a project in American Indian early
childhood education. The districts selected must establish
American Indian advisory committees to assist them.
More than 600 students participate each year in a variety
of projects, including: incorporating an understanding
of the students’ culture and heritage into the
curriculum; developing skills in reading, writing, and
mathematics; involving parents in the educational process,
sometimes through family literacy programs and in-home
educational activities; developing mentoring programs;
fostering cooperation between schools, parents, tribes,
and other Indian educational organizations and programs;
and enhancing technical proficiency through use of video
production, computers, telecommunication, etc. From
1996 to 1999, nine sites have been designated as funding
recipients, with many of the locations serving the needs
of several tribes. In 1998, $450,000 will fund these
programs.
California School Paraprofessional Teacher
Training Program
(Education Code §§ 44390-44393)
Established in 1990-but not funded until 1995-this
program helps minority paraprofessionals gain the training
and credentials necessary to upgrade their skills and
become full teachers. The Education Code calls for both
financial aid and admission application assistance for
paraprofessionals interested in completing teacher credential
programs.
As originally conceived, this program was to assist
at least 600 paraprofessionals in at least 12 school
districts, with at least 40 percent of the paraprofessionals
being members of “racial or ethnic minority groups.”
Bilingual credentialing was later added as a priority.
The California Paraprofessional Teacher Training Program
distributed nearly $1.5 million in 1996 to participating
school districts. In 1997, the Legislature expanded
the program to 24 school districts, with a goal of 1800
participants per year. At an average award of $3000,
this would increase funding to $5.4 million. The Legislature
eliminated, however, any reference to race and ethnicity
and has yet to fund the expansion.
Affirmative Action in Undergraduate Student
Transfer Policy
(Education Code §§ 66202 [a][3],
66720-66743)
The Education Code grants preferences—“to
the fullest extent possible under state and federal
law, statutes, and regulations”—in transfers
to California State Universities or the University of
California for students from historically underrepresented
groups. The program is designed to “assist progress
toward diversifying the race and ethnicity of baccalaureate
degree holders.” State law requires the University
of California and the California State Universities
to distribute their “transfer core curriculum”
to each public school in the state, above sixth grade,
and to each community college, “with an emphasis
on the communication of that information to each school
or college having a high proportion of students who
are members of one or more ethnic minorities.”
In addition, the Education Code requires the governing
boards of the two state university systems to declare
as policy that “the student transfer agreement
program shall constitute a significant role in achieving
the role of student diversity within their segments,
and in ensuring that all students, particularly those
currently underrepresented in higher education, have
access to a university education.” The boards
are required to put policies in place to realize these
affirmative action goals.
The UC Regents eliminated affirmative action in admissions
in July 1995, ostensibly to conform to an Executive
Order of Gov. Wilson to “End Preferential Treatment
and to Promote Individual Opportunity Based on Merit.”
The Regents agreed to maintain a form of affirmative
action-special “consideration”-for those who have
suffered some kinds of economic or social disadvantage,
including those from abusive homes. However, it eliminated
affirmative action, or special consideration, for those
socially disadvantaged for reasons of race, religion,
sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The California
State University system has not taken any similar action
to end affirmative action in its system.
State Graduate Fellowship Program
(Education Code §§ 69670-69680)
The Legislature voted in 1990 to support fellowships
for graduate study at California colleges and universities
to students headed for a career as a college or university
faculty member. Priority consideration is given to students
who are “historically disadvantaged” and
“from groups which are underrepresented in graduate-level
programs and among college and university faculty.”
The Legislature found that “Blacks, Asians, Native
Americans, Hispanics, and females continue to be underrepresented
in graduate education and among college and university
faculty,” at a time when the state expects a dramatic
increase in the hiring of college and university faculty.
It created this program to increase the pool of highly
qualified graduate students from which to draw future
faculty.
The Graduate Fellowship Program is run by the California
Student Aid Commission. Students granted fellowships
must qualify both academically and economically. Fellowships
are awarded for one academic year and may be renewed
for up to three additional years if the recipient is
making satisfactory progress toward a degree. In the
1997-98 academic year, a total of $2.4 million was awarded
to 764 recipients. The average award was $3,171. A spokesperson
for the Commission has been quoted as saying that the
program does not use ethnicity or gender as criteria
in awarding money.
Affirmative Action Employment in California
School Districts
(Education Code §§ 44100-44104)
California established its affirmative action employment
program in the state’s school districts in 1977.
It was intended to remedy the “disproportionately
low number of racial and ethnic minority classified
and certificated employees” in the schools and
“a disproportionately low number of women and
members of racial and ethnic minorities in administrative
positions.” Because of the underrepresentation
of women and minorities, the Legislature required educational
agencies to “adopt and implement plans for increasing
the number of women and minority persons at all levels
of responsibility.”
The Education Code defines an affirmative action employment
program as a “conscious deliberate step”
to undertake “planned activities designed to seek,
hire, and promote persons who are underrepresented in
the work force compared to their number in the population.”
The remedial measures are intended to assist members
of formerly excluded groups “who are qualified
or may become qualified through appropriate training
or expertise within a reasonable length of time.”
It allows each employer to devise its own recruiting,
training and career advancement opportunities that will
result in an equitable representation of women and minorities.
County superintendents of schools assist in developing
and implementing affirmative action plans for smaller
school districts.
While the goals and timetables for the program’s
implementation were repealed in 1994, the legislative
intent of establishing “equal opportunity in employment
for all persons” and promoting “total realization
of equal employment opportunity through a continuing
affirmative action employment program” remains.
The need to diversify the California teacher workforce
is still great. While racial and ethnic minority students
make up over 60% of public school enrollment, only 22%
of California teachers are minorities.4
Science, Mathematics, and Technology Teacher
Pipeline Program
(Education Code §§ 8650 et seq.)
Governor Wilson and the California Legislature established
the Teacher Pipeline Program in 1993 to “prepare
and employ traditionally underrepresented students and
adults desirous of career changes as teachers of science,
mathematics, and technology, through early identification,
support and assistance throughout the educational pipeline.”
The program was intended to develop a variety of strategies
to increase minority candidates for teaching jobs in
the scientific fields.
Despite its broad legislative mandate, the program
serves only one of its original purposes: the creation
and funding of after-school and Saturday classes in
four locations: Riverside Community College, Visalia
Unified School District, California State University
at San Marcos, and the East Bay Consortium of Educational
Institutions. These four institutions provide math,
science, and technology training to children from elementary
to high school, to get them excited about these fields
and encourage them to become teachers.
Although open to all students, the program specifically
targets women and minorities. Funding of $125,000 a
year is divided into four grants to the four participating
institutions, with renewal of annual grants contingent
on evaluation. The grants are administered by the California
Postsecondary Education Commission. The program is authorized
until Jan. 1, 2001.
Student Opportunity and Access Program
(Education Code §§ 69560 et seq.)
The California Student Aid Commission is required to
fund projects “designed to increase the accessibility
of postsecondary educational opportunities to low-income
and ethnic minority elementary and secondary school
students.” The program, established in 1978, spent $1.7
million last year, of which $300,000 was in federal
funds.
The “Cal-SOAP” projects are designed primarily
to (1) increase the availability of information to eligible
students on the existence of postsecondary schooling
and work opportunities, and (2) raise the achievement
levels of these students so as to increase the number
of high school graduates eligible to pursue postsecondary
learning opportunities. Projects may also assist low-income
and ethnic minority community college students in transferring
to four-year institutions.
A 1994 study of Cal-SOAP college entry rates showed
that 4502 students from the program were enrolled in
colleges or universities-a participation rate of 70
percent statewide, as opposed to a 53.2 percent entry
rate for all of the state’s secondary students.
Cal-SOAP projects are required to keep information on
individual low-income and ethnic minority students in
their last two years of high school in participating
school districts.
At nine regional centers-or consortiums-around the
state, thousands of students are receiving SAT training,
academic preparation for college and university entry,
and information about higher-education opportunities.
At least 30 percent of each project grant pays for peer
advisers and tutors to work with the low-income and
ethnic minority students. Each state allocation for
a local project must be matched by an equal or higher
level of local resources.
In 1995-96, five Cal-SOAP projects provided outreach
services to more than 29,000 students, involving more
than 28 public school districts, from the largest urban
areas to small, rural districts; seven of the eight
general campuses of the University of California; 11
of the 22 campuses of the California State University
system; more than a fifth of the state’s 107 community
colleges; 15 private colleges and universities in the
state; and 10 private secondary schools and community
and state organizations.
A spokesperson for the Student Aid Commission has been
quoted in the news media as saying that since the introduction
of Proposition 209, the criteria for the Cal-SOAP outreach
program have shifted from ethnic minority students to
low-income students.
Community College Affirmative Action Hiring
and Peer Review
(Education Code §§ 87100-87107)
In 1978, the Legislature extended its affirmative action
hiring program to community colleges. They are now required
by law to develop and implement affirmative action programs
for the hiring of racial and ethnic minorities and women
for both faculty and administrative positions. The definition
for affirmative action at the community colleges is
similar to that for school districts. Remedial action
in recruiting, employment and promotion is specifically
targeted to “members of groups formerly excluded…who meet the statewide minimum qualifications,
if any, and who…are qualified or may become qualified
through appropriate training or experience within a
reasonable length of time.”
The law also specifies that funds be made available
to assist in adopting and maintaining affirmative action
programs, including the Faculty and Staff Diversity
Fund, “to address the goal that by the year 2005
the system’s work force will reflect proportionately
the adult population of the state.” Included in
the uses of the funds are “outreach and recruitment”
programs, with “incentives to hire members of
underrepresented groups.” Like their counterparts
in K-12 school districts, people of color have great
difficulty obtaining full-time teaching positions within
community colleges. While racial and ethnic minorities
constitute the majority of community college students,
they represent only 21% of the full-time teachers employed
at those institutions.5
State law also specifies that the faculty peer review
process at the community colleges must “address
the forthcoming demographics of California, and the
principles of affirmative action.” Peers are required
to be “both representative of the diversity of
California and sensitive to affirmative action concerns,
all without compromising quality and excellence in teaching.”
Governor Wilson filed a state court challenge to the
constitutionality of affirmative action hiring and peer
review policies in the community colleges (Wilson v.
State Personnel Board). No decision has yet occurred
in that case.
EMPLOYMENT AND APPOINTMENTS
Corrections Boards
(Penal Code § 5075, Welfare and Institutions Code
§ 1717 [b])
Appointees to the Youthful Offender Parole Board and
the Board of Prison Terms, who are appointed by the
Governor and confirmed by the Senate, must “reflect
as nearly as possible a cross section of the racial,
sexual, economic, and geographic features of the state.”
The idea behind this requirement is to have board members
who have diverse perspectives on addressing criminal
justice problems. Both boards require that appointees
have a broad background in criminal justice, and the
Youthful Offender Parole Board specifically calls upon
the governor to appoint members with varied experience.
The Board of Prison Terms, established in 1944, serves
as the state’s adult parole board, conducting
parole hearings for inmates, establishing conditions
for parolees, overseeing placement of mentally disordered
offenders and advising the governor on pardons and clemency.
The nine members of the board manage a budget of about
$13 million dollars and a staff of more than 100.
The Youth Offender Parole Board, established three years
before the Board of Prison Terms and originally known
as the Youth Authority Board, controls parole for young
people committed by the courts to the Youth Authority.
The members have the power to revoke or suspend young
people’s parole, to set dates for parole consideration,
to recommend treatment programs, to discharge people
from Youth Authority jurisdiction and to adjust the
length of incarceration based on institutional behavior
or good behavior.
Civil Service Affirmative Action Program
(Government Code §§ 19790-19799)
In 1977, the Legislature passed the current affirmative
action law governing civil service employment. Under
this law, each state agency and department is required
to establish effective affirmative action programs to
correct for the underutilization of minorities and women.
The statute requires agencies and departments to set
goals and timetables where there is underutilization.
The statute does not require preferences on the basis
of race or gender.
Until the mid-1990s, when budget cuts severely limited
the state’s ability to evaluate the progress made
towards meeting the statute’s goals, the SPB reported
that some departments had made progress in diversifying
their workforces, though progress did not occur across
the board. The SPB found that Hispanics and women continue
to be underutilized by state agencies in comparison
to their workforce availability. The underutilization
was particularly severe in professional, trade, supervisory,
administrative and executive jobs. Governor Wilson filed
suit against the State Personnel Board to end affirmative
action in state civil service. That action is still
pending.
Affirmative Action in Apprenticeship Programs
(Labor Code §§ 1777.5, 3075.1)
California law requires that the operation of public
sector apprenticeship programs use affirmative action
to ensure participation by minorities and women. The
state’s Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS)
is responsible for promoting and developing employment-based
apprenticeship programs. It administers the state’s
apprenticeship standards and conducts outreach activities
to encourage greater numbers of women and minorities
to enter these programs.
Each year the chief of the DAS reports to the Legislature
through the Director of Industrial Relations on the
number and percentages of women and minorities in state
apprenticeship programs, as well as remedial actions
the division has taken to assist programs having difficulty
in achieving affirmative action goals. For instance,
in its 1995 Annual Report, DAS reports that its staff
worked with 14 different local apprenticeship programs
aimed at increasing enrollment by women and minorities.
Partly as a result of these efforts, minority and women’s
participation in apprenticeship programs have increased
through the mid-1990s, with minorities making up 47.7%
of registered apprentices and women 10.8%.
Since Gov. Wilson issued Executive Order W-124-95 in
June 1995, DAS has largely dismantled its affirmative
action policies. It currently does no more than enforce
federal affirmative action requirements. The effect
of repealing state requirements is yet unknown because
DAS has not produced an annual report analyzing the
impact of Governor Wilson’s Executive Order on
women and minority apprentices.
CONTRACTING
Statewide Outreach and Participation Goals
Program
(Public Contract Code §§ 10115-10115.15)
This statewide program applies to any state agency
or department with authority to enter into contracts.
Under this program, state agencies must attempt to meet
goals for awarding contracts to minority, women and
disabled veteran business enterprises, as well as require
prime contractors who bid on any contract to demonstrate
that they have met or made good faith efforts to meet
the same goals for subcontracting. These goals are based
on levels of participation that would be expected in
the absence of discrimination: 15% of contracting dollars
should go to minority business enterprise, 5% to women
business enterprise and 3% to disabled veteran business
enterprise.
The program has been successful at increasing the level
of participation by women and minority firms in public
contracting. Since July of 1989, the California Department
of Transportation spent over $2 billion dollars of state
money on construction projects; minority businesses
received approximately $221 million, and women’s
businesses received approximately $100 million, representing
approximately 11% and 5% of those total contract dollars,
respectively.
In a case involving a contract by California Polytechnic
State University (Monterey Mechanical v. Wilson), the
U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals preliminarily enjoined
the program in September 1997. That ruling, which was
based on federal law and not on Proposition 209, is
currently being reviewed by the appeals court and is
not final. In the meantime, the program remains in place
not only for the University but for all other state
agencies and departments as well. Significantly, the
Court did not base its ruling on any finding that discrimination
has been eradicated in California. To the contrary,
the Court found only that there was not accurate enough
data regarding under-utilization of women- and minority-owned
businesses by the state entity being sued. A law requesting
that the University of California perform a study to
look at the problem of this under-utilization throughout
the state was enacted in 1991, but the study has never
been completed. The study should be conducted now, so
that the continued vitality of programs to address under-utilization
can be ensured.
Ensuring Nondiscrimination by State’s
Personnel Service Contractors
(Government Code § 19130)
This law requires that before a state agency or department
can contract out for a personnel service, it must demonstrate
that the contracted services: (1) could not be performed
by existing state personnel, (2) does not displace civil
service employees, (3) “does not adversely affect
the state’s affirmative action efforts,”
and (4) must require that a contractor’s hiring
practices meet applicable state and federal nondiscrimination
and affirmative action requirements. The goals of this
law are to ensure that civil service employees, including
minorities and women, will not be adversely affected
by the state’s contracting practices and that
the state does not contract out to businesses that discriminate.
Eliminating these provisions would allow state agencies
and departments to contract with businesses that are
violation of federal law.
Department of Transportation Contracts
(Government Code § 14132; Streets & Highways
Code § 180.1)
Since 1988, the California Department of Transportation
developed a program to open up the contracting system
for the services of engineers, architects, surveyors,
planners, and environmental and material specialists.
Over the last decade, the Department has spent over
$2.1 billion of state money for these services (excluded
federally-funded projects). Approximately 97% of those
funds went to white male-owned businesses.
This law requires that the California Department of
Transportation adopt participation goals for minority,
women and disabled veterans business enterprise in this
lucrative field. As with local programs, the Department
of Transportation must attempt to award 15% of the funding
for these services to minority business enterprise,
5% to women business enterprise and 3% to disabled business
enterprise. Any prime contractor it hires is also required
to make “good faith efforts” to subcontract
with minority, women and disabled veterans business
enterprises, e.g. by advertising to them and inviting
them to bid. If a prime contractor hires a diverse subcontractor
contingent (15% minority-owned businesses, 5% women-owned
businesses, and 3% disabled veteran-owned businesses),
it does not need to demonstrate that it performed this
outreach. Streets & Highways Code § 180.1 extends
the participation goals and outreach requirements to
all aspects of seismic retrofitting projects.
Lottery Contracts
(Government Code § 8880.56)
The Legislature has declared that involvement of small
and disadvantaged businesses in the work of the Lottery
to be of the “utmost importance.” To that
end, the Lottery Commission and the director require
all bidders and contractors for goods and services over
$500,000 to have specific plans for using socially and
economically disadvantaged small businesses. Minority
and women-owned businesses may fall into this category,
as may any other small business that is determined to
be disadvantaged. In addition, contractors must demonstrate
for any particular contract that they have sought out
disadvantaged businesses and negotiated with them in
good faith.
Because the Lottery Act was enacted by initiative,
none of its provisions may be changed except to further
the Act’s purposes, and then only by a two-thirds
vote of each house of the Legislature.
Bond Services Contracts
(Government Code §§ 16850 et seq.)
Each year, the State Treasurer and other financing
authorities issue bonds and oversee their sale, requiring
services from professionals, such as underwriters and
financial printers. The state contracts out much of
this work, spending over $200 million on these professional
services from 1989 through 1996. The law requires state
entities issuing bonds to set goals for minority and
women business enterprise participation (15% and 5%,
respectively). As a result, contracts have been awarded
to qualified minority and women-owned businesses. Nonetheless,
white male-owned firms are still awarded the vast majority
of these contracts.
Public Contracting at the State Level
State agencies, which together contract approximately
4 billion dollars worth of work annually, also have
programs to ensure outreach to minority and women-owned
businesses, so that they have an equal opportunity to
participate fully in the State’s contracting system.
The outreach programs set forth below are a means to
address that problem.7
Community College Contracts
(Education Code § 71028)
The California Community Colleges must include participation
goals and outreach programs as set forth in Public Contract
Code § 10115 et seq. 15% of total funds are to
be awarded to minority-owned business enterprises, 5%
to women-owned enterprises, and 3% to disabled veteran
enterprises. The community colleges contracted out more
than $590 million for goods and services in 1996. Of
this amount, only 4.8% ($28 million) went to minority-owned
businesses. 4.6% went to women-owned businesses.
Local Public Contracting
(Public Contract Code §§ 2000 et seq.)
This law allows local governments to address systemic
under-utilization of minority and women-owned businesses
when evaluating prime contractor bids for local public
works projects. The state law does not require local
cities and counties to enact these programs; it simply
allows them to, if they want to ensure against discrimination.
This law allows local agencies to require that prime
contractors perform outreach to minority and women-owned
businesses to ensure that minorities and women are not
frozen out of the bidding process. This outreach includes
widely advertising for bids; supplying information about
bid specifications to interested minority and women-owned
enterprises; and negotiating in good faith with interested
bidders. If a prime contractor submits a bid that reflects
diversity of subcontractors, then the prime does not
even need to demonstrate that it performed this outreach.
Notably, there is never any requirement that prime contractors
give work to any particular subcontractor or to any
particular groups. These local programs have been successful
over the years at reducing the level of under-utilization
of women and minority-owned businesses. Participation
rates across the state can be expected to fall again
if the program is repealed.6
Dept. of Corrections Contracts
(Public Contract Code § 10108)
This law requires that prime contractors bidding on
Department of Corrections jobs must list the women-
and minority-owned businesses that it plans to use,
along with the portion of the work that those businesses
will receive. Prime contractors are then prohibited
from substituting other subcontractors after their bid
is accepted, except for good cause. For the year starting
July 1, 1996, the Department of Corrections had nearly
$460 million in total contracts: 5.4% were awarded to
minority business enterprises and 6.6% to women business
enterprises.
Joint Powers Agencies Contracts
(Government Code § 6522)
Any state department or agency that enters into a joint
powers agreement with a federal or local government
must include an outreach program similar to the Department
of Transportation’s, outlined above.
Certification Procedures
(Public Contract Code §§ 2051 et seq.)
State law provides for definitions and certification
procedures for minority and women-owned businesses,
in order to facilitate compliance with the above laws.
Only businesses that are majority-owned and operated
by minorities or women can be certified. Foreign businesses
and their subsidiaries cannot be certified. A centralized
database of certified businesses must be maintained
and made available to state and local agencies.
UNFUNDED, NONEXISTENT OR DISCONTINUED PROGRAMS
The following programs were also cited by Governor
for amendment or elimination. However, they were either
never funded, no longer exist, or have expired:
California Summer Science and Technology Academy
(Education Code §§ 8630-8633)
In 1990, the Legislature directed the California Department
of Education to enter an agreement with the University
of California to begin a pilot program called the California
Summer Science and Technology Academy. This statewide
program was meant to identify public high school students
with high academic potential in math, science, and technology
and place them in summer university-based research programs,
with an emphasis on female and minority students who
traditionally have been underrepresented in the scientific
fields. The research programs were to be designed to
enhance instruction in math, science, and technology;
better prepare the participants for coursework in these
subject areas at the university level; and improve the
students’ participation in math, science, and
technology competitions.
The authorizing legislation was repealed in 1994. It
is unclear whether the Academy ever existed beyond the
pilot program in 1990, as it is nowhere to be found
in the Department of Education, California Post-Secondary
Education Commission, or University of California System
today.
Department of Transportation Affirmative Action
Employment
(California Government Code § 14130[e])
This code section established the Department of Transportation’s
affirmative action program for its hiring practices.
The provision sunsetted January 1, 1998.
Financial Aid for Graduate Degree and Teacher
Credential Programs
(Cal. Education Code § 66021.4)
Education Code § 66021.4 declares, “It is
the intent of the Legislature to support student financial
aid programs for eligible students enrolled in teacher
credential and graduate degree programs, including an
emphasis on increasing the number of graduate students
from currently and historically underrepresented groups
who are preparing to become future elementary and secondary
teachers or postsecondary faculty members.” There
is no specific program associated with this section
of the education code.
Participation and Outreach Goals for the Superconducting
Super Collider Project
(Government Code §§ 8790.70 et seq., §§
8790.80 et seq. )
These programs provide for participation and outreach
goals similar to those described in other codes, but
applied only to the Superconducting Super Collider project,
which was canceled. In 1987, when the law was passed,
California was competing for the federal contract to
build the Collider, a giant particle accelerator. Since
that time, an out-of-state site was awarded the project,
and Congress cut off funding for the project.
|
