BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 549 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 1, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Joan Buchanan, Chair AB 549 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended: April 23, 2013 SUBJECT : Comprehensive school safety plans SUMMARY : Requires the comprehensive school safety plan to include clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health and intervention professionals, school resource officers and police officers on the school campus based on specified requirements. Specifically, this bill : 1) Finds and declares that schools remain one of the safest places for students, and voter surveys indicate belief that having trained guidance counselors in every school would be more effective than having armed police officers in schools. 2)Expresses the intent of the Legislature to improve school campus safety and academic success by better defining the roles and responsibilities of adults on campus pertaining to safety and school discipline. 3)Requires the school safety plan to include clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health and intervention professionals, school resource officers, and police officers on the school campus that conform to the following requirements: a) The primary strategies to create and maintain positive school climate, promote school safety, and increase pupil achievement shall emphasize and prioritize mental health and intervention services, restorative and transformative justice programs, and positive behavior interventions and support. b) The primary function of police and school resource officers (SROs) on a school campus shall be to focus on addressing those situations that require protecting the physical safety of pupils and staff. c) The school shall consider existing strategies and model approaches to minimize the involvement of law enforcement in pupil conduct and minor offenses that do not rise to the AB 549 Page 2 level of a serious and immediate threat to physical safety. d) If a school district has police officers on campus, schools are encouraged to create memorandums of understanding (MOUs) that clearly delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of the school and the police officers in order to maximize resources and to ensure that the administrative response to pupil conduct and minor offenses are handled pursuant to school district policies and state law before involving law enforcement. MOUs shall be public and shall include participation and input from pupils, parents, and the full school community. 4)Specifies that a school or school district that elects to apply for and receive state or federal funding for purposes of increasing campus safety shall comply with the following: a) Submit a plan to the California Department of Education (CDE) on the proposed use of funds. b) Develop, if using funds for additional law enforcement personnel, clear MOUs with law enforcement on the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement on and off school campus. The MOU shall be available to the public. c) Prioritize, if electing to receive additional funding for campus safety from a state or federal source, using funding to improve school climate, including increasing school personnel, intervention workers, counselors, and other supportive mental health service providers, and to improve school-based programs, restorative and transformative justice, and schoolwide positive behavior intervention and support, to the extent this prioritization is permitted by state and federal law. EXISTING LAW : 1)Specifies that the schoolsite council or a school safety planning committee is responsible for developing the comprehensive school safety plan. (Education Code Section (EC) 32281) 2)Specifies that the comprehensive school safety plan shall include an assessment of the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions AB 549 Page 3 and identification of appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school's procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; rules and procedures on school discipline; and hate crime reporting procedures. (EC 32282) 3)Authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police, and to employ peace officers to ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils, and the security of the real and personal property of the school district. Specifies that persons employed and compensated as members of a police department of a school district, when appointed and duly sworn, are peace officers, for the purposes of carrying out their duties of employment (EC 38000 and 38001) 4)Authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security, and to employ personnel to ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils and the security of the real and personal property of the school district. Expresses the intent of the Legislature that a school district security department is supplementary to city and county law enforcement agencies and is not vested with general police powers. (EC 38000) FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : School safety plans . Existing law requires each school to develop a school safety plan that includes processes, procedures, and policies to ensure student and staff safety at a school site. The components of the plan range from daily processes, such as procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents and school employees; to disaster and emergency procedures such as those during and after earthquakes; to AB 549 Page 4 behavioral policies such as discrimination and harassment policies. The school safety plan is developed by a school site council or a school safety planning committee. Current law requires a school to submit the school safety plan to the school district or COE for approval and requires the school district or county office of education (COE) to annually notify the CDE of any schools that have not complied with the requirement to develop a school safety plan. The SPI is authorized to impose a fine of not more than $2,000 against a school district or COE for any willful failure to make any required report. According to the CDE, there has been no report of noncompliance by schools and no district or COE has been fined for willfully failing to report a school that has not developed a school safety plan. It is unclear whether this is because there has no violations and every school in the state has developed its school safety plan, or whether districts or COEs have not reported schools that have not developed their school safety plans. This bill requires the school safety plan to include guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health and intervention professionals, school resource officers, and police officers on the school campus. The guidelines must conform to the following requirements: 1)The primary strategies to create and maintain positive school climate, promote school safety, and increase pupil achievement shall emphasize and prioritize mental health and intervention services, restorative and transformative justice programs, and positive behavior interventions and support. 2)The primary function of police and school resource officers on a school campus shall be to focus on addressing those situations that require protecting the physical safety of pupils and staff. 3)The school shall consider existing strategies and model approaches to minimize the involvement of law enforcement in student conduct and minor offenses that do not rise to the level of a serious and immediate threat to physical safety. 4)If a school district has police officers on campus, schools are encouraged to create MOUs that clearly delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of the school and the police officers in order to maximize resources and to ensure that the administrative response to pupil conduct and minor offenses are handled pursuant to school district policies and state law before involving law enforcement. MOUs shall be public and shall include participation and input from pupils, AB 549 Page 5 parents, and the full school community. School police departments and security departments . Governing boards are authorized to establish security departments headed by a chief of security and a police department headed by a chief of police. Security departments are considered supplementary to city and county law enforcement agencies and are not vested with general police powers. Individuals employed and compensated as members of a police department of a school district, when appointed and duly sworn, are considered peace officers. The Penal Code specifies that the authority of persons employed by school district police departments extends to any place in the state and authorizes these types of peace officers to carry a firearm if authorized by the employing agency. An estimated 22 districts have district police departments. Larger districts are more likely than smaller districts to have police departments. SROs . Districts that do not have police departments may partner with local city or county law enforcement agencies through a SRO program. The SRO program assigns one or more police officers to work with school districts to create and maintain a safe environment and provide support and training to school and district officials on crime prevention, gang intervention and school safety. Some SROs may assign one officer to each middle and/or high school or one officer to work with several middle and/or high schools, while others may assign one officer to work with the whole district. Some SROs are on campuses daily. Focus on less punitive measures . This bill raises many issues regarding the role of law enforcement on campus. Some parents appreciate having law enforcement presence on school campus to deter criminals from entering the schoolsite and to better monitor gang activity inside and outside school. However, according to the author's office, some law enforcement officials are too aggressive and turn too easily to issuances of citations and arrests of pupils for non-safety reasons, including for disciplinary reasons such as truancy and tardiness, fighting, writing on school desks or books, and substance issues. The author states, "While they [law enforcement officers] are an important part of overall community safety, they are not the most effective means of keeping schools safe and can actually have a counterproductive effect. To make learning environments safer, researchers recommend that schools take actions to create connectedness and trust between children and adults." A January AB 549 Page 6 2013 survey conducted by the California Endowment on voter attitudes on school safety shows that voters are divided on the presence of armed police officers in schools, with 23% indicating strong support, 27% somewhat support, 19% somewhat opposed, and 28% strongly opposed. In the last couple of years, legislation have focused on reducing punitive measures, such as out of school suspensions and expulsions, and emphasized more positive strategies to change behaviors. The rationale is that a student is more likely to engage in gangs, commit criminal activities and enter the juvenile justice system if they are not in school. Consistent with this belief is that the presence of law enforcement on school campuses and incarceration of pupils are contrary to the cultivation of a positive school culture. Pupils should not be arrested or cited at school for minor offenses. Disciplinary behaviors are more appropriately handled by school staff. A 2009 paper titled "Policing in Schools" by the American Civil Liberties Union states, "Improper school-based arrests and referrals to law enforcement have a devastating impact on children. Studies show that being arrested has detrimental psychological effects on the child; nearly doubles the odds of dropping out of school, and, if coupled with a court appearance, nearly quadruples the odds of dropout; lowers standardized test scores; reduces future employment prospects; and increases the likelihood of future interaction with the criminal justice system." Role of police officers and SROs . This bill specifies that the primary function of police and SROs on a school campus shall be to focus on addressing those situations that require protecting the physical safety of pupils and staff. School police officers and SROs would argue that they are more than just law enforcement agents. For example, SROs have programs to prevent juvenile delinquency by developing positive relationships with students and working with guidance counselors and other student support staff to assist students and to provide services to students involved in situations where referrals to service agencies are necessary. Limiting the role of SROs and police officers to only that of ensuring physical safety may prevent these types of activities. The Committee may wish to consider whether there is a non-enforcement role for police officers and SROs and whether restricting their role to just situations of where there is threat to the physical safety of pupils and staff prevents flexibility for school districts and police or law AB 549 Page 7 enforcement agencies to establish strategies that allow law enforcement to have a non-enforcement role. The bill encourages schools that have police officers to create MOUs to clearly delineate the role and responsibilities of police officers to ensure that minor offenses are dealt with by school staff rather than law enforcement. While it may be appropriate to have MOUs with SROs, a district that has its own police department would not require a MOU. If the Committee chooses to pass this bill, staff recommends an amendment to encourage the creation of a MOU or the development of policies in districts with police departments regarding the role and responsibilities of law enforcement. The provisions of this bill were added to the school safety plan sections of the Education Code. Since the bill dictates the role of police officers and establishes parameters for MOUs with law enforcement, staff recommends relocating this provision to the sections of the Education Code dealing with school security. Use of future state and federal grant funds . This bill requires a school or school district interested in applying for state or federal funding to submit a plan to the CDE on proposed use of funds; develop MOUs with law enforcement on the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement on and off school campus, and prioritize the use of funds to improve school climate, including increasing school personnel, intervention workers, counselors, and other supportive mental health providers, to improve school-based reform programs. According to the author's office, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that districts do not use funds to hire police officers over other school staff such as mental health providers. While the goals of changing school culture and ensuring that there are adequate counselors and mental health providers have merit, the Committee may wish to consider whether the law should dictate the use of all future grant funds. It is unclear what funds will be available and what the requirements will be for eligibility and applying for the funds. If grants offer flexible uses, each school may have different needs. For example, some schools may have high priority to strengthen the physical safety of a campus, such as improving communications systems or installing inside door locks. Should the law permanently specify the use of all future grant funds? Staff recommends amending this provision to encourage school districts AB 549 Page 8 to prioritize the use of grant funds for the purposes specified in the bill. According to the CDE, funds being deliberated in Congress would not be allocated through the CDE. As such, staff recommends striking the provision requiring school districts to submit a plan to the CDE. Arguments in Support . The Children's Defense Fund-California states, "Despite evidence that schools are the safest place for our children, the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut has ignited the need for action in communities across America. However, there is no evidence to support the idea that the zero-tolerance approach of increasing police and a security presence at schools actually makes them safer. In fact, these practices have turned many schools into unwelcoming and even hostile environments for students, and actually provoke misbehavior, rather than prevent it." Arguments in Opposition . The Association of California School Administrators states, "AB 549 requires the MOU to include specific strategies and offenses and limits the involvement of police officers on a school site. AB 549 is very prescriptive for a school safety plan and requiring the MOU to be a pubic document could actually reduce school safety." Related legislation . AB 420 (Dickinson), pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, removes disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel as a reason to suspend or recommend for expulsion, any pupil in kindergarten through grade 5. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Children's Defense Fund-California (sponsor) Advancement Project American Civil Liberties Union All of Us or None California Conference for Equality and Justice California Families to Abolish Solitary Confinement California Federation of Teachers California Fund for Youth Organizing Californians for Justice Californians United for a Responsible Budget AB 549 Page 9 Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice Community Asset Development Re-Defining Education Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Justice for Families Labor/Community Strategy Center's Community Rights Campaign Legal Services for Children Legal Services for Prisoners with Children Los Angeles Community Action Network Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund National Center for Lesbian Rights PolicyLink Public Counsel Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles W. Haywood Burns Institute Youth Justice Coalition Youth Law Center Several individuals Opposition Association of California School Administrators Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087