BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 389
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 389 (Williams)
As Amended July 11, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |76-0 |(April 18, |SENATE: |39-0 |(August 26, |
| | |2013) | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: ED.
SUMMARY : Requires private schools to fingerprint all employees
who will have contact with minors; specifies that as part of
certification, the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI)
may verify that a nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency has
received a successful criminal background check clearance and
has enrolled in subsequent arrest notice service, for each
owner, operator, and employee of the school or agency; requires
a nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency to, upon demand, make
available to the SPI evidence of a successful criminal
background check clearance and enrollment in subsequent arrest
notice service, for each owner, operator, and employee of the
school or agency; and, specifies a nonpublic, nonsectarian
school or agency shall retain the evidence and store it in a
locked file separate from other files.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, the costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
process fingerprints and obtain criminal background information,
as required by this bill, will be fully reimbursed by fees paid
to the Fingerprint Fees Account by the applicants or employers
(private, nonpublic schools). To the extent that the SPI elects
to verify successful criminal background check clearance for
private schools during certification, there would likely be a
minor workload increase to the California Department of
Education (CDE).
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill establishes
uniformity between public and private, nonpublic schools
regarding employee background check requirements. Nonpublic
schools are private schools funded with public dollars to serve
students with exceptional needs. According to the CDE, there are
293 certified nonpublic schools. Approximately 12,635
California students are educated each year in nonpublic schools
AB 389
Page 2
located both in California and in other states.
This bill requires all private schools, including nonpublic
schools, to fingerprint their employees who have contact with
pupils; and, the bill further clarifies that during the
certification process for nonpublic schools, the SPI shall have
access to evidence that demonstrates these schools are
completing the necessary background checks on their employees.
Nonpublic schools often serve the most vulnerable students. When
a child has needs that cannot be met in a public school setting,
that child may be educated in a nonpublic school at public
expense. Students qualified for placement in nonpublic schools
have exceptional learning, behavioral, or physical handicapping
conditions that negatively impact their educational progress.
Typical handicapping conditions of nonpublic school students
include: learning disabled, seriously emotionally disturbed,
developmentally disabled, autistic, speech and language
impaired, or other health impairments. These students, like all
California students, deserve to be protected but are potentially
most at risk of not being able to communicate abuse.
Fingerprinting at Private Schools and Nonpublic Schools :
Current law requires districts and charter schools to conduct a
background check on any certificated employee whose employment
status is temporary, substitute, or probationary or on any
non-certificated person who will be employed by the district.
Because districts and charter schools are required to establish
a relationship regarding employees with the DOJ through the
background check process, public school districts and charter
schools are notified of subsequent arrests. This mechanism
enables them to take immediate action including conducting their
own internal investigation of an arrest. If necessary, a
district or charter school can then immediately remove an
employee from a classroom to ensure student safety.
Existing law exempts certificated or licensed employees at
private schools, including nonpublic schools, from the
background check requirements if these individuals possess a
valid California state teaching credential or are currently
licensed by another state agency that requires a criminal record
summary. Although the Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC)
and other licensing agencies require background checks, the law
prohibits interagency sharing of records thereby preventing the
CTC from providing to districts information it receives from the
AB 389
Page 3
DOJ. Consequently, private schools, including nonpublic schools,
would not receive notification of any arrest of a certificated
employee if one occurred after they are hired.
Because public school districts or charter schools are required
to have a relationship established with the DOJ, the district or
charter school is quickly notified of an arrest and has the
ability to take immediate action and investigate the arrest.
However, since there is no existing requirement that a private
school, including a nonpublic school, establish a relationship
with the DOJ through background checks, a private school,
including a nonpublic school, would not be notified if an
employee is arrested, and under the current process, would not
be able to immediately undertake an investigation to ensure the
safety of students who interact with that employee.
Certification for Nonpublic Schools : The SPI certifies
nonpublic schools and part of the certification process requires
the SPI to confirm that the school is doing the proper
background checks on its employees. Due to privacy laws, the
SPI is not able to obtain the appropriate evidence that the
background checks are taking place when the employees are hired
and that proper steps are taken when someone is arrested after
they are hired. This bill requires nonpublic, nonsectarian
schools to provide the SPI evidence of a criminal background
check and clearance on each operator and employee. The Assembly
should consider what evidence the SPI will have access to as
part of this requirement and whether this evidence will be
sufficient to certify the process is being handled
appropriately. The Assembly should also consider whether the
evidence obtained by the SPI will violate any privacy laws.
Analysis Prepared by : Chelsea Kelley / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001726