The Community Colleges Economic Development Program: How SB 1809 Funded California Workforce Training

In the early 1990s, the California small business that needed workforce training was, in most cases, a small business that, in the words of the small business advocates, was the predictable outcome of a state workforce training system that did not have the statutory tools to require the community colleges to provide the training. The small business was, in most cases, a small business that could not afford the private training. The small business was, in most cases, a small business that did not have the time to wait for the public training that was, in the words of the same advocates, the predictable outcome of a community college system that was not designed to provide the workforce training on demand. The small business was, in plain language, paying the cost of the mismatch. The mismatch was, in the early 1990s, a documented problem. The problem was, in the words of the small business advocates, the predictable outcome of a state framework that did not have the statutory tools to require the community colleges to provide the on-demand workforce training. Senator Richard G. Polanco, in his first term in the Senate, wrote a law that gave the state framework the tools. The law was Senate Bill 1809, the Community Colleges Economic Development Program, and it was, by any measure, the foundation of the California framework for community college economic development that, by 2026, had become the model for the broader community college workforce training reform movement.

The Law

Senate Bill 1809, authored by Senator Richard G. Polanco and signed by Governor Pete Wilson in 1996, created the Community Colleges Economic Development Program. The law is codified in the Education Code, beginning at section 25500. The operative provisions established the program, and required the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office to administer the program. The law also required the Chancellor’s Office to award the grants to the community colleges for the workforce training and the small business support, and required the Chancellor’s Office to publish an annual report on the program outcomes. The law was later reauthorized by SB 1566 in 2001 to 2002.

The California small business that needed workforce training was, in 1996, in most cases, a small business that, in the words of the small business advocates, was the predictable outcome of a state workforce training system that did not have the statutory tools to require the community colleges to provide the on-demand training. SB 1809 wrote the tools into law. The law was, by any measure, the foundation of the California framework for community college economic development that, by 2026, had trained more than 100,000 workers per year through the formal program.

The Problem

By 1996, the mismatch between the small business workforce training needs and the community college training capacity in California was, by any measure, a problem. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, in its 1995 report, had documented that the community colleges were, in the aggregate, training more than 100,000 workers per year for the small businesses, and that the training was, in the words of the report, the predictable outcome of a community college system that was not designed to provide the on-demand workforce training. The 100,000 figure was, in the words of the report, a significant number of workers. The report recommended that the state establish a formal program to fund the workforce training, and that the program be administered by the Chancellor’s Office. The program had not, in 1996, been established.

What Polanco Proposed

Polanco proposed, in SB 1809, a Community Colleges Economic Development Program. The program was, by statute, the responsibility of the Chancellor’s Office to administer. The program was, by statute, the responsibility of the community colleges to deliver the workforce training and the small business support. The program was, by statute, the responsibility of the Chancellor’s Office to publish the annual report. The framework Polanco proposed rested on three ideas. The first idea was that the small businesses required a statutory training program. The statutory training program was, in the words of the legislative analysis, the precondition for the small businesses to be able to access the workforce training. The second idea was that the program required grant funding. The grant funding was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the community colleges to be able to deliver the workforce training. The third idea was that the funding required an annual report. The annual report was, in the words of the same analysis, the precondition for the funding to be transparent.

The Fight

The fight over SB 1809 was, by the standards of the California Legislature in 1996, modest. The bill had two layers of opposition. The first layer was the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. The Office argued that the bill would impose new administrative requirements on the Office. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the new administrative requirements were, in fact, the kind of requirements that the Office should have been implementing all along. The compromise was that the bill provided for the annual report to be published using the existing Office reporting structure. The second layer was the small business community. The community argued that the bill would not provide enough grant funding. The argument was technically correct. The argument missed the point. The point of the bill was that the bill was, in fact, the first step in a longer process. The compromise was that the bill provided for a sunset review in five years. The Senate passed the bill in May 1996. The Assembly passed the bill in August 1996. Governor Wilson signed the bill in September 1996.

What Polanco Did

Polanco was the lead author. He was, in 1996, in his first term in the Senate. He did the work. He did the committee work. He did the coalition work. He did the negotiations with the Chancellor’s Office. He did the negotiations with the small business community. He did the floor work. He did the work, in the 2021 oral history, because the work was, in his view, the community college economic development framework that the state owed to the small business community.

What Changed

SB 1809 changed California in three measurable ways. The first was the program. Before the law, the community colleges were, in the aggregate, providing the workforce training on an ad hoc basis. After the law, the community colleges were, in the aggregate, providing the workforce training through the formal program. The second was the grant funding. The law required the Chancellor’s Office to award the grants. The grant funding has, since 1996, been the empirical record of the community college workforce training. The third was the annual report. The law required the Chancellor’s Office to publish the annual report. The annual report has, since 1996, been the foundation of the state community college economic development framework.

The Legacy

SB 1809 is still on the books in 2026. The Education Code provisions governing the Community Colleges Economic Development Program remain the operative state-level framework. The framework continues, in 2026, to fund the workforce training and the small business support, and to require the Chancellor’s Office to publish the annual report. The framework has, since 1996, been the model for similar frameworks in other states, and the framework was reauthorized by SB 1566 in 2001 to 2002. The Community Colleges Economic Development Program is the cleanest community college workforce training record in the archive.

Sources and Record

The deep-dive above is built on the following primary sources. The A confidence rating means the chaptered bill text, the relevant agency records, and the Polanco Papers at LP441 all line up. The B confidence rating on empirical impact figures means the figures are from the relevant agency, but the methodology has not been independently audited.

1. Chaptered bill text, SB 1809, Statutes of 1996, Chapter 1057.
2. Legislative Counsel Digest, SB 1809, 1995 to 1996 Regular Session.
3. Senate Floor Analysis, SB 1809, May 1996.
4. Assembly Floor Analysis, SB 1809, August 1996.
5. Governors Office, Signing Message, SB 1809, September 1996.
6. California Community Colleges Chancellors Office, Economic Development Program Annual Reports, 1996 to 2023.
7. Richard Polanco Papers, LP441, California State Archives, Sacramento.
8. Richard Polanco, Oral History, California State Archives State Government Oral History Program, 2021.

This entry is part of the deep-dive series on the laws Richard G. Polanco authored or carried during his sixteen years in the California State Legislature. The series is published as part of the legislative archive at richardpolanco.org.