Existing law establishes the Jobs for California Graduates Program for the purpose of creating a regional system of local programs to help Californias at-risk youth complete their secondary education and transition into the workforce or enroll in postsecondary education. As part of this program, existing law authorizes the Director of Employment Development to make grants to applicants for the purposes of carrying out Jobs for California Graduates local programs in the central valley region and requires these local programs to include certain elements, including, among others, a trained youth specialist providing individual and group instruction and informal guidance and continuous improvement of results through the ongoing professional development of managers, supervisors, and specialists.

This bill would additionally require local programs to consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate. By increasing the duties of local workforce development boards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: August 8, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1470

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:June 18, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill creates the Commission on the Future of Work (Commission), an advisory body comprised of eight appointed members, as specified. The Commission must organize research to understand the impact of technology on workers, employers, and the California economy, and develop recommendations on a policy framework to manage the development, deployment, regulation, taxation, and fair distribution of the benefits of technology used in the workplace. The Commission must submit its recommendations to the Legislature and the governor no later than November 1, 2019.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time costs to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to commission research and to staff the Commission.

COMMENTS:

Background and purpose. A March 2018 joint informational hearing held by the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment and the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee explored the possible impacts of automation and technology on job losses and the labor market. That hearing cited a 2017 report by the McKinsey Global Institute that estimated that approximately 23% of work performed in the United States could be displaced by 2030. Moreover, there is significant uncertainty about whether these employment shifts will be offset by the creation of new jobs, and whether this process will lead to job and income polarization.

According to supporters, the Commission created by SB 1370 will help policymakers shape how technology is developed and deployed so that it serves the public good. The California Labor Federation points out that the Commission will convene a public process that will hear the voices of workers and others who are affected by technology.

Analysis Prepared by: Luke Reidenbach / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Tony Thurmond, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1470

Author:(Stern) – As Amended Ver:June 18, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 39-0

SUBJECT: Commission on the Future of Work

SUMMARY: Establishes a Commission on the Future of Work. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes an eight member Commission on the Future of Work (Commission) comprised of individuals with knowledge of and expertise in, work, workforce development, labor, technology, robotics or artificial intelligence, as specified.
2. Requires the Commission to convene a public process, commission research, advise and develop policy recommendations for the state, as specified.
3. Makes related findings and declarations.
4. States that the Commission shall be advisory only, and there shall be no right or obligation on the part of the state, or the parties meeting and conferring, to implement the findings of the Commission without further legislation that specifically authorizes that the evaluations, determinations, and findings of the Commission be implemented.

EXISTING LAW: Requires the Governor to transmit to the Legislature, not later than April 15 of each year, an economic report to be designated as the “Economic Report of the Governor” setting forth, among other things, a review of economic developments during the preceding calendar year and forecasts of trends in employment, income, and investment for the coming year and trends in such major economic sectors as it is feasible to project.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: According to the author, “Technology has the potential to remake the state’s economy and our entire society. It can be harnessed as a force to increase the public good, or it can exacerbate existing income inequality and social problems. Government will need to prepare for and respond to the changes created by technological advancements. The best way to prepare is to understand the impact technology has on workers—from workers and their representatives themselves. Technology shouldn’t displace workers, but should complement their work, making it safer, healthier and more productive.”

The Future of Work

In March of this year the Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment and the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee held a joint hearing on the Future of Work. The backgrounder for the joint hearing states, “While the extent of job loss due to automation is difficult to forecast, labor market economists have been able to project the percentage of work performed that could be automated. A 2017 report by the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that around 15 percent of work performed globally could be displaced by 2030.^[1] In the United States, that number is slighter higher at 23 percent.^[2] If advanced technology is developed more quickly than expected, due to factors such as increased feasibility and lower cost, then the global number is closer to 30 percent.^[3] The Institute contends that although these numbers are significant, they lack context. They argue that empirically when employment shifts from one sector to another, worker displacement is largely temporary. For example, while the agricultural share of employment in the U.S. went from 60 percent in 1850 to less than 5 percent in 1970,^[4] most workers were able to move into manufacturing jobs.”

The backgrounder continues, “Even if automation creates new jobs while displacing others, there is significant concern that this process will lead to job and income polarization. A number of labor economists worry that, over the next decade, automation will exacerbate the hollowing-out of middle class jobs.^[5] Technological advancements have historically fostered employment in high-income cognitive jobs and low-income manual occupations. Some examples of high-income cognitive jobs are architects and senior managers while examples of low-income manual jobs are cleaners and fast food workers.^[6] The effect of this polarization is seen in the decline in the employment share of four middle-class occupations: sales, office workers, production workers, and operators. In 1979, these occupations accounted for 60 percent of employment, while in 2007, they accounted for 46 percent.^[7] Some labor economists argue that policy interventions may be necessary to halt or reverse this trend.”

The backgrounder goes on to discuss, “Some researchers also raise the concern that the current pace of automation will cause an occupational shift so dramatic that worker retraining needs will be immense.^[8] Unlike previous waves of technological advancement, where workers could move from one routine job to another, the next phase of automation will require large numbers of workers to switch occupations and also enter new industries.^[9] In addition, many of these workers will be at the midcareer point, and could find it challenging to reenroll in training or educational programs.”

Technical Concerns

The bill as currently drafted, on Page 4, line 13, references Section 12049 of the Government Code, which does not exist. Instead, the author may wish to reference Section 9795 of the Government Code, which provides guidance on submitting reports to the Legislature.

Arguments in Support

According to the California Labor Federation (Labor Fed), “Even if mass automation does not displace workers in the short-term, technology is fundamentally altering the workplace and economy in subtle and pervasive ways. The rise in apps for everything from food delivery to home repair to rides to the ER has enabled the spread of contingent work that provide few benefits, low wages and little security. The rise in e-commerce and meal kit delivery services is reshaping the retail, grocery, and logistics industries. Advances in artificial intelligence mean that technology can be deployed in every industry in our economy, from law to health care to education and entertainment.”

The Labor Fed continues, “California leads the global economy in the development of innovative new technology. However, we lag behind other nations in developing a comprehensive policy framework to manage the impact of technology on workers and the economy. Policy makers have a critical role to play in shaping how technology is developed and deployed so that it serves the public good, and not just the interests of private companies.” They continue, “To do so requires an understanding of the varying impacts of technology on different industries and on different workforces. The best way to gain that understanding is through listening to the experiences of workers and the work unions have already done to help shape the deployment of technology at their workplace. From that understanding, policy makers can develop a framework that includes regulation, taxation, and programs that are put into place that shape the kind of technologies that are developed, how they’re deployed, and the quality of jobs that are created as a result.”

The Labor Fed further asserts, “SB 1470 creates a Commission on the Future of Work which will be tasked with developing a policy framework for legislators, the Governor, agencies, departments and the public to manage the development and deployment of technology, and the policies, regulations and laws needed to ensure the benefits are equitably distributed. The Commission will be made up of experts and also include representatives of labor and business who are on the front lines of technological changes in the workplace. They will convene a public process to hear the voices of workers, and others, impacted by technology and listen to their suggestions on how technology can make work better.”

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Labor Federation, (AFL-CIO) (sponsor)

University Professional and Technical Employees, CWA, Local 9119

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Richard / L. & E. /

1. James Manyika et al., “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2017, p. 2. ↑

2. Id. ↑

3. Id. ↑

4. Manyika et al., “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2017, p. 4. ↑

5. See Manyika et al., “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2017; Frey and Osborne, “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” University of Oxford, working paper, September 17, 2013; and David Rotman, “How Technology is Destroying Jobs,” MIT Technology Review, June 12, 2013. ↑

6. The Economist, Special Report, “The Impact on Jobs: Automation and Anxiety,” June 25, 2016, online at: https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety. ↑

7. David H. Autor, “Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 3, Summer 2015, p. 14. ↑

8. Manyika et al., “Jobs Lost, Jobs Gained: Workforce Transitions in a Time of Automation,” McKinsey Global Institute, December 2017, p. 9. ↑

9. See id.; The Economist, Special Report, “The Impact on Jobs: Automation and Anxiety,” June 25, 2016. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1470

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE: 4-0, 4/25/18

AYES: Pan, Jackson, Mitchell, Wieckowski

NO VOTE RECORDED: Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/25/18

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill requires that local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Jobs for California Graduates non-profit, which a public-private partnership designed to create a network of local programs to help California’s at-risk youth complete their secondary education and acquire the basic skills necessary to successfully transition into the workforce or enroll in postsecondary education. (Unemployment Insurance Code §9900)
2. Requires that the regional system of Jobs for California Graduates local programs must be designed to accomplish all of the following goals: (Unemployment Insurance Code §9900)
   1. To decrease absenteeism rates for at-risk youth.
   2. To improve the performance of at-risk youth in school and in the workplace.
   3. To improve secondary education completion rates.
   4. To improve employability skills of at-risk youth.
   5. To improve employment placement rates for at-risk youth.
   6. To improve enrollment rates of at-risk youth in postsecondary education and training.
3. Requires that local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program must include all of the following elements: (Unemployment Insurance Code §9902)
   1. A trained youth specialist employed year-round providing individual and group instruction to 25 to 45 eligible youth recruited and selected by a school-based advisory committee comprised of faculty, administrators, and counselors.
   2. Youth shall be taught a minimum of 37 employment competencies designed to prepare them to secure a quality entry-level job or pursue a postsecondary education, or both, upon completion of their secondary education.
   3. Placement services shall be provided to students during the summer months or partnerships developed with summer youth employment programs to support yearlong learning. Youth specialists shall maintain contact with youth during the summer months.
   4. A student-led organization, associated with a state and national association, shall build on the competency-based curriculum and provide the opportunity for students to develop, practice, and refine their leadership and team membership skills.
   5. It shall serve as a school-based “one-stop center” for participating at-risk youth to ensure that they receive appropriate academic and social services from available resources in the school and community.
   6. It shall provide no less than 12 months of followup and support on the job and in postsecondary education after leaving the school.
   7. It shall provide computerized tracking of youth served, services delivered and performance outcomes, such as graduation rate, positive outcome rates, aggregate employment rate, full-time jobs rate, full-time placement rate, further education rate, wages, and return to school rate, at local and state levels.
   8. It shall provide continuous improvement of results through the ongoing professional development of managers, supervisors, and specialists.

This bill requires that the local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program must consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

Comments

“Spotty Lincoln” and the Spot Resolutions of 1847:

In 1845, President James Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to march US Troops to the Rio Grande, which was considered disputed territory between the soon-to-be annexed Republic of Texas and Mexico. By late March 1846, Taylor’s troops were stationed outside the Mexican town of Matamoros (present-day Brownsville, Texas). On May 9^th, 1846, President Polk was notified that US Troops has skirmished with Mexican troops, resulting in the death of 11 US troops. Two days later, President Polk asked Congress to declare war, stating: “…Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war (emphasis added)." Two days later, Congress declared war on Mexico.

However, not all Congressmen believed what Polk had asserted. Specifically, members of the Whig Party argued that there was not sufficient evidence to argue that Mexican troops had actually invaded US Territory. Polk responded by accusing the Whig Party of treason. Both sides continued to attack one another in the press.

In late 1847, a freshman Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln introduced the “Spot Resolutions”. Lincoln stated that he was “desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil (emphasis added).” While none of these resolutions were acted upon, Lincoln continued to raise the issue of the importance of the “Spot Resolutions” in private correspondence, arguing:

That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it…. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. . . .

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. ....

While Lincoln was challenged by political attacks as “Spotty Lincoln” as late as 1858, Polk himself essentially proved Lincoln right. On July 24, 1848, President Polk noted in an update to the House of Representatives on peace treaty negotiations with Mexico that the Mexican-American war started in “disputed territory”, not American soil as Polk earlier stated. Of course, by then this was a moot point: the United States would soon receive a significant amount of territory from Mexico as a part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, including what is now California.

In short, “spots” have had a significant role in the creation of California and, by extension, the modern world.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2827 (Cardoza, Chapter 313, Statutes of 2000) created the Jobs for California Graduates program.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Jobs for California Graduates Program has been defunded since 2002. Thus, as currently drafted, this bill would result in a General Fund cost pressure to fund the program once again. The magnitude is unknown, but would likely be in the low millions of dollars annually.

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/25/18)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/25/18)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author states the following:

In establishing the Jobs for California Graduates California law sent a strong message that the state is committed to help our at risk youth move forward by assisting them in getting prepared to enter the job market. While this is a good first step in helping these youth, it is important that these programs be developed in a way where these young individuals are being prepared for jobs that they are interested in and in job fields where we have a current need.

SB 1470 will ensure that as the Jobs for Graduates Program develops local program they coordinate with local workforce development boards, which will better inform these programs to train and educate local at risk youth for jobs where there is a need and room to grow.

Prepared by:

5/26/18 15:14:43

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

SB 1470 (Stern) - Jobs for California Graduates Program

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

SB 1470 would require that local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

Fiscal Impact:

The Jobs for California Graduates Program has been defunded since 2002. Thus, as currently drafted, this bill would result in a General Fund cost pressure to fund the program once again. The magnitude is unknown, but would likely be in the low millions of dollars annually (See Staff Comments).

Background:

Current law establishes the Jobs for California Graduates Program, a public-private partnership designed to create a network of local programs to help California’s at-risk youth complete their secondary education and acquire the basic skills necessary to successfully transition into the workforce or enroll in postsecondary education. The regional system of Jobs for California Graduates local programs must be designed to accomplish all of the following goals: (1) decrease absenteeism rates for at-risk youth, (2) improve the performance of at-risk youth in school and in the workplace, (3) improve secondary education completion rates, (4) improve employability skills of at-risk youth, (5) improve employment placement rates for at-risk youth, and (6) improve enrollment rates of at-risk youth in postsecondary education and training. Current law (Unemployment Insurance Code §9902) requires local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program to include specified elements, including a trained youth specialist employed year-round providing individual and group instruction to 25 to 45 eligible youth recruited and selected by a school-based advisory committee comprised of faculty, administrators, and counselors.

Proposed Law:

This bill would require the local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program to consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

Related Legislation:

AB 2827 (Cardoza, Chapter 313, Statutes of 2000) created the Jobs for California Graduates Program (Program).

Staff Comments:

As currently drafted, this bill would place a new requirement on the Jobs for California Graduates Program. However, while it exists in statute, the Program has not been funded since 2002. Thus, in order for the Program to fulfill the new requirement placed on it, the program itself would first have to be resurrected statewide. Thus, as currently drafted, this bill would result in a General Fund cost pressure to fund the Program. The fiscal impact is unknown, and would depend upon the size and scope of the refunding. However, as an order of magnitude, the initial cost estimate to implement to the Program in 2000 was about $2 million. The gross domestic product deflator for state and local governmental purchases (a measure of public sector inflation) has risen 56 percent since 2002. This implies current comparable costs to fund the Program (at a level similar to 2002) would be $3.1 million annually.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Senator Richard Pan, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: SB 1470 Hearing Date: April 25, 2018

Subject: Jobs for California Graduates Program

KEY ISSUE

Should the Legislature require that local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate?

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Establishes the Jobs for California Graduates non-profit, which a public-private partnership designed to create a network of local programs to help California’s at-risk youth complete their secondary education and acquire the basic skills necessary to successfully transition into the workforce or enroll in postsecondary education. (Unemployment Insurance Code §9900)
2. Requires that the regional system of Jobs for California Graduates local programs must be designed to accomplish all of the following goals:
3. To decrease absenteeism rates for at-risk youth.
4. To improve the performance of at-risk youth in school and in the workplace.
5. To improve secondary education completion rates.
6. To improve employability skills of at-risk youth.
7. To improve employment placement rates for at-risk youth.
8. To improve enrollment rates of at-risk youth in postsecondary education and training.

(Unemployment Insurance Code §9900)

1. Requires that local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program must include all of the following elements:
2. A trained youth specialist employed year-round providing individual and group instruction to 25 to 45 eligible youth recruited and selected by a school-based advisory committee comprised of faculty, administrators, and counselors.
3. Youth shall be taught a minimum of 37 employment competencies designed to prepare them to secure a quality entry-level job or pursue a postsecondary education, or both, upon completion of their secondary education.
4. Placement services shall be provided to students during the summer months or partnerships developed with summer youth employment programs to support yearlong learning. Youth specialists shall maintain contact with youth during the summer months.
5. A student-led organization, associated with a state and national association, shall build on the competency-based curriculum and provide the opportunity for students to develop, practice, and refine their leadership and team membership skills.
6. It shall serve as a school-based “one-stop center” for participating at-risk youth to ensure that they receive appropriate academic and social services from available resources in the school and community.
7. It shall provide no less than 12 months of followup and support on the job and in postsecondary education after leaving the school.
8. It shall provide computerized tracking of youth served, services delivered and performance outcomes, such as graduation rate, positive outcome rates, aggregate employment rate, full-time jobs rate, full-time placement rate, further education rate, wages, and return to school rate, at local and state levels.
9. It shall provide continuous improvement of results through the ongoing professional development of managers, supervisors, and specialists.

(Unemployment Insurance Code §9902)

This bill requires that the local affiliates of the Jobs for California Graduates Program must consult with local workforce development boards on efforts where they can cooperate.

COMMENTS

1. “Spotty Lincoln” and the Spot Resolutions of 1847:

In 1845, President James Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to march US Troops to the Rio Grande, which was considered disputed territory between the soon-to-be annexed Republic of Texas and Mexico. By late March 1846, Taylor’s troops were stationed outside the Mexican town of Matamoros (present-day Brownsville, Texas). On May 9^th, 1846, President Polk was notified that US Troops has skirmished with Mexican troops, resulting in the death of 11 US troops. Two days later, President Polk asked Congress to declare war, stating: “…Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. She has proclaimed that hostilities have commenced, and that the two nations are now at war (emphasis added)." Two days later, Congress declared war on Mexico.

However, not all Congressmen believed what Polk had asserted. Specifically, members of the Whig Party argued that there was not sufficient evidence to argue that Mexican troops had actually invaded US Territory. Polk responded by accusing the Whig Party of treason. Both sides continued to attack one another in the press.

In late 1847, a freshman Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln introduced the “Spot Resolutions”. Lincoln stated that he was “desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil (emphasis added).” While none of these resolutions were acted upon, Lincoln continued to raise the issue of the importance of the “Spot Resolutions” in private correspondence, arguing:

That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it…. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect. . . .

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. ....

While Lincoln was challenged by political attacks as “Spotty Lincoln” as late as 1858, Polk himself essentially proved Lincoln right. On July 24, 1848, President Polk noted in an update to the House of Representatives on peace treaty negotiations with Mexico that the Mexican-American war started in “disputed territory”, not American soil as Polk earlier stated. Of course, by then this was a moot point: the United States would soon receive a significant amount of territory from Mexico as a part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, including what is now California.

In short, “spots” have had a significant role in the creation of California and, by extension, the modern world.

2. Proponent Arguments:

The author, writing in support, states the following:

“In establishing the Jobs for California Graduates California law sent a strong message that the state is committed to help our at risk youth move forward by assisting them in getting prepared to enter the job market. While this is a good first step in helping these youth, it is important that these programs be developed in a way where these young individuals are being prepared for jobs that they are interested in and in job fields where we have a current need.

SB 1470 will ensure that as the Jobs for Graduates Program develops local program they coordinate with local workforce development boards, which will better inform these programs to train and educate local at risk youth for jobs where there is a need and room to grow.”

3. Opponent Arguments:

None on file.

4. Prior Legislation:

AB 2827 (Cardoza), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2000, creates the Jobs for California Graduates program.

SUPPORT

None on file.

OPPOSITION

None on file.

-- END --