BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 549
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 549 (Jones-Sawyer) - As Amended: May 6, 2013
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill requires comprehensive school safety plans to include
clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental
health and intervention professionals, school resource officers,
and police officers on a school campus. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Requires the guidelines to conform to the following
requirements:
a) Require the primary strategies to create and maintain a
positive school climate, promote school safety, and
increase pupil achievement to emphasize mental health and
intervention services, restorative and transformative
justice programs, and positive behavior interventions and
support.
b) Requires the primary function of police and school
resource officers is addressing situations that require
protecting the physical safety of pupils and staff.
c) Requires the school to 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 level of serious and immediate threat to
physical safety.
2)Requires a school or school district that elects to apply for,
and receives, state or federal funding for purposes of
increasing campus safety (if using the funds for additional
law enforcement personnel) to develop a clear memoranda of
understanding (MOU) with law enforcement on the roles and
responsibilities of law enforcement on and off school campus.
AB 549
Page 2
Further requires the MOU to be available to the public.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time costs GF/98 state reimbursable, likely between
$250,000 and $500,000, to school districts to update their
school safety plans to include clear guidelines for the roles
and responsibilities of mental health and intervention
professionals, school resource officers, and police officers
on a school campus, as specified. There are 9,919 public
schools in California.
2)One-time GF/98 costs, likely between $300,000 and $600,000, to
school districts to establish a MOU with law enforcement, as
specified. This assumes between three and five percent of
school districts choose to spend state and federal funds on
law enforcement personnel. There are approximately 1,000
school districts in the state.
3)Prior to the 2012-13 Fiscal Year (FY), the annual cost of the
existing school safety plan mandate was approximately $5
million GF/98. The 2012 Budget Act significantly reduced the
number of local education agencies filing K-12 mandate claims,
including the school safety plan mandate, with the enactment
of the K-12 Mandate Block Grant (see below).
SUMMAR CONTINUED
1)Encourages a school district, if electing to receive
additional funding for campus safety from a state or federal
source, to use the funding to improve school climate, as
specified (to the extent this use is permitted by state and
federal law).
2)Encourages a school district that has police officers on
campus to create a MOU that clearly delineates the respective
roles and responsibilities of the school and the police
officers in order to maximize resources and to ensure the
administrative response to pupil conduct and minor offences
are handled pursuant to district policies and state law before
involving law enforcement. Further requires the MOU to be
public and include participation and input from pupils,
parents, and the full school community.
COMMENTS
AB 549
Page 3
1)Background . Existing law specifies that each school district
and county office of education (COE) is responsible for the
overall development of all K-12 school's comprehensive school
safety plans. It also delineates the contents of these plans,
including procedures for dealing with safety-related issues
and emergency procedures. The school safety plan is required
to be updated annually.
Statute requires each schoolsite council to be responsible for
the development of the plan. The council is required to
consult with a representative from law enforcement in writing
and developing the plan.
2)Purpose . According to the author, "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. Across the
state, school districts such as Los Angeles Unified School
District, have responded to the very rational fears of parents
by deploying more law enforcement officers on school campuses.
They are an important part of overall community safety; they
are not the only means of keeping schools safe and can
actually have a counterproductive effect."
This bill requires comprehensive school safety plans to
include clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of
mental health and intervention professionals, school resource
officers, and police officers on a school campus.
3)Current law authorizes the governing board of a school
district to establish a security department under the
direction of a chief of security, as designated by the
superintendent. Statute expresses legislative intent that the
security department is supplementary to city and county law
enforcement agencies and is not vested with general police
powers.
Statue further authorizes the governing board of district to
establish a school police department under the supervision of
a school chief of police. This department is authorized to
employ peace officers, as defined under the Penal Code.
4)K-12 Mandate Block Grant and existing obligations . The 2012
Budget Act allocated $166.6 million for this block grant.
AB 549
Page 4
Essentially, a school district, charter school, or county
office of education may choose to receive a per-pupil
allocation to conduct existing K-12 mandated activities,
including developing a school safety plan. If the district,
charter school, or COE chooses to receive this allocation it
forfeits its ability to claim mandate reimbursement via the
existing state process. School districts received
approximately $28 per pupil; charter schools approximately $14
per pupil; and COEs approximately $29 per pupil. The
advantage of this block grant is school districts will receive
annual funding now versus waiting to receive payment under the
existing claims process, which the state has deferred paying
for a number of years.
According to the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO), 634 school
districts (approximately 67% of all districts), 35 COEs
(approximately 60% of all COEs), and 877 charter schools
(approximately 93% of charter schools) participated in the
block grant. Presumably if the requirements of this measure
are determined to be a state mandated program, its
requirements would be added to the block grant.
According to the LAO, the state owes approximately $4.2
billion GF/98 in mandate claims from prior years. Until the
2011-12 FY, the state deferred K-14 mandate payments due to
the fiscal crisis. Of the $4.2 billion GF/98, K-12 is owed
approximately $3.8 billion and California Community Colleges
are owed approximately $350 million.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081