BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1317|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 1317
Author: Leno (D)
Amended: 8/9/10
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-1, 4/20/10
AYES: Leno, Cedillo, Hancock, Huff, Steinberg, Wright
NOES: Cogdill
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-1, 5/10/10
AYES: Kehoe, Cox, Alquist, Leno, Price, Wolk, Wyland, Yee
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Corbett, Denham
SENATE FLOOR : 21-9, 5/13/10
AYES: Alquist, Ashburn, Cedillo, DeSaulnier, Dutton,
Florez, Hancock, Harman, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu,
Lowenthal, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Romero, Simitian,
Steinberg, Wolk, Yee
NOES: Aanestad, Cogdill, Denham, Ducheny, Hollingsworth,
Negrete McLeod, Runner, Strickland, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Oropeza,
Wiggins, Wright, Wyland, Vacancy, Vacancy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available
SUBJECT : Truancy
SOURCE : San Francisco District Attorney
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
2
DIGEST : This bill enacts a new misdemeanor for parents
of K-8 children who are chronically truant, as specified;
and authorizes courts to establish a deferred entry of
judgment program to handle cases involving parents or
guardians of elementary school pupils who are chronically
truant, with specified features.
Assembly Amendments (1) add to guidelines for the new court
program, (2) add clarifying language as to procedure to be
followed by the District Attorney, and (3) clarify that
parents must be offered language accessible support.
ANALYSIS : Current law provides that "every person who
commits any act or omits the performance of any duty, which
act or omission causes or tends to cause or encourage any
person under the age of 18 years to (become a dependent or
delinquent ward of the juvenile court) or which act or
omission contributes thereto, or any person who, by any act
or omission, or by threats, commands, or persuasion,
induces or endeavors to induce any person under the age of
18 years or any ward or dependent child of the juvenile
court to fail or refuse to conform to a lawful order of the
juvenile court, or to do or to perform any act or to follow
any course of conduct or to so live as would cause or
manifestly tend to cause that person to become or to remain
a person within the (jurisdiction of the dependency or
delinquency court, as specified), is guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by imprisonment in the
county jail for not more than one year, or by both fine and
imprisonment in a county jail, or may be released on
probation for a period not exceeding five years." (Penal
Code 272.)
Current law provides that for purposes of these provisions,
"a parent or legal guardian to any person under the age of
18 years shall have the duty to exercise reasonable care,
supervision, protection, and control over their minor
child." (Id.)
This bill enact a new crime providing that a "parent or
guardian of a pupil of six years of age or more who is in
kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and who is
subject to compulsory full-time education or compulsory
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
3
continuation education, whose child is a chronic truant as
defined in Section 48263.6 of the Education Code, who has
failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil's
school attendance, and who has been offered language
accessible services to address the pupil's truancy, is
guilty of a misdemeanor," punishable by a fine not
exceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Current law authorizes a diversion program for parents or
guardians who are being prosecuted for contributing to the
delinquency of a minor under Penal Code section 272, as
specified. (Penal Code 1001.70 et seq.)
This bill provides that a parent or guardian guilty of the
new misdemeanor this bill would create would be eligible to
participate in the deferred entry of judgment program
created by this bill, as explained below.
This bill authorizes a superior court to establish a
deferred entry of judgment program "to adjudicate cases
involving parents or guardians of elementary school pupils
who are chronic truants as defined in Section 48263.6 of
the Education Code, " with the following components:
1.A dedicated court calendar.
2.Leadership by a judge of the superior court in that
county.
3.Meetings, scheduled and held periodically, with school
district representatives designated by the chronic
truant's school district of enrollment. Those
representatives may include school psychologists, school
counselors, teachers, school administrators, or other
educational service providers deemed appropriate by the
school district.
4.Service referrals for parents or guardians, as
appropriate to each case that may include, but not
limited to, all of the following:
A. Case management.
B. Mental and physical health services.
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
4
C. Parenting classes and support.
D. Substance abuse treatment.
E. Child care and housing.
5.A clear statement that, in lieu of trial, the court may
grant deferred entry of judgment with respect to the
current crime or crimes charged if the defendant pleads
guilty to each charge and waives time for the
pronouncement of judgment and that, upon the defendant's
compliance with the terms and conditions set forth by the
court and agreed to by the defendant upon the entry of
his or her plea, and upon the motion of the prosecuting
attorney, the court will dismiss the charge or charges
against the defendant, and the same procedures specified
for successful completion of a drug diversion program, or
a deferred entry or judgment program shall apply.
6.A clear statement that failure to comply with any
condition under the program may result in the prosecuting
attorney or the court making a motion for entry of
judgment, whereupon the court will render a finding of
guilty to the charge or charges pled, enter judgment, and
schedule a sentencing hearing as otherwise provided in
this code.
7.An explanation of criminal record retention and
disposition resulting from participation in the deferred
entry of judgment program and the defendant's rights
relative to answering questions about his or her arrest
and deferred entry of judgment following successful
completion of the program.
8.The bill provides that a parent or guardian of an
elementary school pupil who is a chronic truant, as
defined in Section 48263.6 of the Education Code, may not
be punished for a violation of both this section and the
provisions of Section 272 that involve criminal liability
for parents and guardians of truant children.
If any district attorney chooses to charge a defendant
with a violation of subdivision (a) and the defendant is
found by the prosecuting attorney to be eligible or
ineligible for deferred entry of judgment, the
prosecuting attorney shall file with the court a
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
5
declaration in writing, or state for the record, the
grounds upon which that determination is based.
This bill requires that funding for the deferred entry of
judgment program come solely from nonstate services.
This bill becomes operative only if SB 1148 of the 2009-10
Regular Session is enacted, adds Section 48263.6 to the
Education Code, and becomes operative on or before January
1, 2011.
Related Legislation
This bill is contingent upon the passage of Senator
Alquist's bill, SB 1148, which as amended April 6, 2010,
would provide the following definition of chronic truancy:
Any pupil subject to compulsory full-time education or
to compulsory continuation education who is absent
from school without valid excuse for 10 percent or
more of the schooldays in one school year, from the
date of enrollment to the current date, is deemed a
chronic truant, provided that the appropriate school
district officer or employee has complied with
Sections 48260, 48260.5, 48261, 48262, 48263, and
48291. (emphasis added.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/10)
San Francisco District Attorney (source)
California District Attorneys Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/30/10)
Labor/Community Strategy Center
Public Defenders Association
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
6
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office:
When it comes to breaking the cycle of crime, we can
either pay attention to the signs of trouble now, or
we can pay the price later. We pay that price in more
ways than one. Elementary school children who fail to
attend school today become tomorrow's high school
dropouts. Dropouts are those most likely to end up in
the streets as either victims or perpetrators of
crime. ? Combating elementary school truancy is a
smart approach to crime prevention.
The statistics speak volumes. Habitual truants become
high school truants, and it is estimated that as many
as 75 percent of all truant high school students will
eventually drop out of school. Statewide,
three-fourths of prison inmates are high school
dropouts. In San Francisco, over 94 percent of all
homicide victims under the age of 25 are high school
dropouts. ?
? In 2007, the National Center for Children in Poverty
issued a study finding that children who miss 10
percent or more of the days in a given school year are
the most likely to suffer lower academic performance
in subsequent school years. ?
? Numerous studies demonstrate a strong correlation
between teenage truancy and juvenile delinquency. The
California Department of Education identified truancy
as the most powerful predictor of juvenile delinquent
behavior. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention reported that truancy
correlates with substance abuse, gang involvement, and
other criminal activity. A report by Fight Crime:
Invest in Kids concluded that increasing graduation
rates by 10 percentage points would decrease rates of
violent crime by 20 percent, and prevent 500 murders
and more than 20,000 aggravated assaults each year in
California. ?
County prosecutors have relied on Penal Code Section
272, "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" to
seek stronger sanctions against parents of repeatedly
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
7
truant children. Although Section 272 does not
specifically address truancy, courts have found
parents guilty of this misdemeanor if their failure to
get their child in school results in delinquent
juvenile behavior. Under this statute, parents can be
fined up to $2,500 or placed in jail for 6 months.
Unfortunately, however, neither the Education Code nor
the Penal Code effectively addresses the most serious
problem that needs the most immediate attention:
chronic elementary school truancy.
The Education Code does not distinguish between levels
of truancy, leaving the potential for parents of
children who have missed 5 days to be considered as
liable as parents of children who have missed 50 days
for failing to ensure access to education. The most
severe consequence that a parent can receive under the
Education Code is an infraction conviction and a fine.
(Education Code Section 48293)
Second, the Penal Code's silence on the issue of
truancy leaves prosecutors and courts with the
unhelpful option of focusing on whether the child is
delinquent as a result of missing school, rather than
focusing on the parents' failure to provide a basic
need. Parents who allow their young children to have
chronic levels of truancy are neglecting their child's
needs, regardless of whether that child demonstrates
delinquent behavior. Failing to educate a child is an
issue of neglect, just like failing to feed or clothe
them.
Finally, when prosecutors do invoke "contributing to
the delinquency of a minor" to bring misdemeanor
charges against parents of severely truant children,
criminal courts have widely varying responses to these
charges. Some courts take a punitive approach that
may levy a fine or jail time on the parent but may not
result in the return of the child to school, while
others may not take these charges seriously, given the
gravity of other criminal offenses being addressed,
and may throw out the cases with no changed
circumstances for the child. ?
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
8
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Public Defenders
Association states that, "We are concerned that SB 1317 may
disproportionately impact single parents who have every
good intention of arranging for their child to arrive to
school on time and without any absences. The reality is
that school buses run very infrequently if at all due to
severe budget cuts statewide, and grade school children
face the prospect of walking to school on their own,
regardless of the neighborhood. This is true even more so
in communities plagued with rival gang territories that
result in barriers to realizing safe passage to the school.
"Many elementary schools do not provide extended care prior
to school starting or after school care. Some schools
offer such extended before care and after care but require
payment for such services that for a minimum wage earning
single parent is not a luxury that one can afford. Instead
of creating a new crime that will clog the courts with
parents who are surely going to lose the few jobs that are
still held, the Legislature should refocus priorities in
ways that help rather than hurt working class single
parents, including safe passage to schools for elementary
school children and universal extended care before and
after school. By way of example, the Los Angeles Unified
School District, the largest in the state, recently
approved shortening the school year by approximately seven
days in order to save 2,100 jobs. What was not considered
was how parents would arrange for childcare during the
seven extra days that are likely to be cut from the year.
No plan whatsoever has been discussed dealing with ways to
support
those working parents who are now without extended care,
nor have the luxury of accruing vacation days. Most
working parents do not get paid for days that they don't
show up"
RJG:nl 8/30/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SB 1317
Page
9
CONTINUED