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