BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2616 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 16, 2012 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Felipe Fuentes, Chair AB 2616 (Carter) - As Amended: May 9, 2012 Policy Committee: Education Vote:10-0 Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No SUMMARY This bill makes the following modifications to truancy requirements: 1)Defines "valid excuse" as including, but not limited to, the current reasons for which a pupil is excused from school. Further authorizes other reasons that are within the discretion of school administrators and based on the pupil's circumstances. 2)Authorizes the parent/guardian, the first time the truancy report is issued, to request a meeting with a school counselor or other school designee to discuss the root causes of the attendance issue and develop a joint plan to improve the pupil's attendance. 3)Authorizes a peace officer, the second time a truancy report is issued within the same school year, to give a pupil a written warning, as specified under current law. Further authorizes the school to assign a pupil to an afterschool or weekend study program located within the same county as his or her school. 4)Requires the pupil, if he or she fails to successfully complete the assigned study program, to be classified as a habitual truant, and authorizes the school to require the pupil to attend an attendance review board or truancy mediation program, as specified in current law. 5)Authorizes rather than requires a pupil to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court the fourth time a truancy AB 2616 Page 2 report is issued within the same school year. 6)Reduces, from $100 to $50, the fine a pupil (the parent/legal guardian is liable) must pay if he or she is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court. Specifies the fine is not subject to penalties and assessments. FISCAL EFFECT 1)GF/98 cost pressure, likely between $2 million and $4 million, for school districts to comply with a parent/guardian's request to attend a meeting with a counselor, upon receipt of the first truancy report, as specified. This assumes between 5% and 10% of pupils who were classified as truant in 2010-11 participate in this options. 2)Potential GF savings, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars, to the court system to repeal the mandate that a pupil a ward of the juvenile court upon a fourth truancy report within the same school year. COMMENTS 1)Purpose . According to the author, "Effective school attendance improvement methods involve assessing the pupil to determine the primary cause of the attendance issue, involving the parent early in the process, using incentives to improve attendance, and targeting more intensive interventions, like cognitive behavior therapy, for students who do not respond to lower levels of intervention." The author further states: "A County-wide task force convened in 2011 by Los Angeles County Supervising Delinquency and Dependency Judge Michael Nash, which involved local police and the district attorney's office, among others, found that 'research on effective approaches overwhelmingly supports school-based rather than law enforcement-based interventions as the most effective for both improving attendance rates and reducing rates of chronic absence.' In addition, studies have shown that children referred to the Juvenile Court are four times more likely to drop out of schools, such that juvenile court involvement may not be the best strategy in all truancy cases." This bill modifies the existing statute regarding truancy requirements. AB 2616 Page 3 2)Background . Existing law requires each person between six and 18 years of age to attend public, full-time day school and requires his or her parent/guardian to send them unless legally exempt. Current law defines a truant as a pupil missing more than 30 minutes of instruction without a valid excuse three times during the school year. Likewise, statute defines a chronic truant as any pupil who is absent from school without a valid excuse for 10% or more of the school days in one school year, as specified. According to the State Department of Education, there were 1.84 million pupils classified as truants in the 2010-11 school year. The number equals a 29.76% truancy rate in the state. Statute also requires a school district to notify the pupil's parent/guardian of the following information, using the most effective method possible, including electronic mail or a telephone call: a) A pupil is a truant. b) The parent/guardian is obligated to compel the pupil to attend school and the parent/guardian who fails to meet this obligation may be guilty of an infraction and subject to prosecution. c) There are alternative educational programs available in the district. d) The pupil may be subject to prosecution under existing law. e) The pupil may be subject to suspension, restriction, or delay of the pupil's driving privilege. f) The recommendation that the parent/guardian accompanies the pupil and attends his or her classes for one day. Under current law, a minor who is reported as a truant may be required to attend make-up classes conducted on one day of a weekend and is subject to the following: a) A written warning by a peace officer, as part of the first truancy report. b) Assignment to an afterschool or weekend study program located within the same county as the pupil, as part of the second truancy report issued within the same school year. AB 2616 Page 4 c) A pupil classified as a habitual truant may be required to attend an attendance review board or truancy mediation program, as part of the third truancy report issued within the same school year. d) A pupil becomes a ward of the juvenile court, as part of the fourth truancy report issued within the same school year. 1)Unpaid K-12 mandates . According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the state owes approximately $3.4 billion in K-12 mandate costs for prior years. Prior to the 2010 Budget Act, the state deferred mandate payments for several years with the promise of making the payments to school districts in future years. As a result, districts did not received payment for annual services they were required to conduct, including the school safety plan mandate. The K-12 pupil truancy mandates total approximately $22.8 million GF/98 annually. SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7, Statutes of 2011 allocated $80 million GF/98 to school districts for annual K-12 mandate costs; the state, however, still owes school districts for the prior year costs. Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916) 319-2081