BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
1
4
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta) 1
As Amended May 23, 2014
Hearing date: June 24, 2014
Education Code
AA:sl
TRUANCY:
INFORMATION SHARING
HISTORY
Source: The Attorney General of California
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Los Angeles Unified School District; Rosemead School
District; State Superintendent of Public Instruction;
Glendale Unified School District; Senator Ricardo Lara;
California State PTA; California School Nurses
Organization; Association of Black Correctional
Workers; Continuing the Dream; District Attorney of
Alameda County; San Francisco District Attorney;
Stockton Unified School District Superintendent;
Lawndale Elementary School District; Los Angeles County
District Attorney's Office; Special Needs Network;
Fresno Unified school District Superintendent; Los
Angeles City Attorney; Truancy Assessment and Resource
Center; SEIU; AFSCME, AFL-CIO; several individuals
Opposition:Public Counsel; Black Parallel School Board
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 70 - Noes 1
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 2
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES CONDUCTING A TRUANCY-RELATED
MEDIATION OR PROSECUTING A STUDENT OR PARENT FOR A
TRUANCY-RELATED MATTER BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE OUTCOME OF THE
CASE TO THE REFERRING AGENCY?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require a state or local agency
conducting a truancy-related mediation or prosecuting a student
or parent for a truancy-related matter to provide the outcome of
the case to the referring agency, as specified.
Current law generally provides a series of mechanisms for school
administrators to identify and deal with K-12 students who are
chronically absent or truant. (See Education Code §§ 60901,
48205, 48260, 48260.5, 48264.5(a), 48260.6, 48261, 48264.5(b),
48260.6, 48262, 48262, 48264.5(c), 48263, 48264.5(d), 48263.6,
48321, and 48325.)
Current law requires the Annual Report on Dropouts in California
to include, when data is available, truancy rates and chronic
absentee rates. (Education Code § 48070.6)
Current law requires local control accountability plans (LCAPs)
to include information addressing specific state priorities,
including student engagement as measured by school attendance
rates, chronic absenteeism rates, dropout rates and graduation
rates. (Education Code §§ 52060 and 52066.)
Current law requires school districts to gather and transmit to
the county superintendent of schools the number and types of
referrals to school attendance review boards and requests for
petitions to the juvenile court. (Education Code § 48273.)
Current law requires, contingent upon federal funding, the
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CalPADS)
to support local educational agencies (LEAs) in their efforts to
identify and support students at risk of dropping out and be
capable of issuing to LEAs periodic reports that include
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 3
district, school, class and individual student reports on rates
of absence and chronic absentees. Reporting student attendance
and chronic absentee data for CalPADS is voluntary. (Education
Code § 60901)
Current law generally provides for the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court over a person under the age of 18 who
"persistently or habitually refuses to obey the reasonable and
proper orders or directions of his or her parents, guardian, or
custodian, or who is beyond the control of that person," or who
violates curfew offenses, as specified. (Welfare and
Institutions Code ("WIC") § 601.) These types of offenses are
known generally as "status" offenses - acts that are illegal
only if committed by juveniles (typically, running away,
disobeying parents, curfew violations and truancy).
Current law provides that if "a minor has four or more truancies
within one school year . . . or a school attendance review board
or probation officer determines that the available public and
private services are insufficient or inappropriate to correct
the habitual truancy of the minor, or to correct the minor's
persistent or habitual refusal to obey the reasonable and proper
orders or directions of school authorities, or if the minor
fails to respond to directives of a school attendance review
board or probation officer or to services provided, the minor is
then within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may
adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. However, it is the
intent of the Legislature that no minor who is adjudged a ward
of the court pursuant solely to this subdivision shall be
removed from the custody of the parent or guardian except during
school hours. . . ." WIC § 601(b).
This bill requires a state or local agency conducting a
truancy-related mediation or prosecuting a student or parent for
a truancy-related matter to provide the outcome of the case to
the referring agency. Specifically, this bill:
1) Requires a state or local agency conducting a
truancy-related mediation, or prosecuting a student or
parent to provide the outcome of each referral to the
school district, school attendance review board, county
superintendent of schools, probation department, or any
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 4
other agency that referred a truancy-related mediation,
criminal complaint, or petition.
2) Defines "outcome" to include, but is not limited to, the
act or action taken by a state or local authority with
respect to a truancy-related mediation, prosecution,
criminal complaint, or petition.
3) Requires a state or local agency conducting a
truancy-related mediation or prosecuting a student or
parent to provide the outcome of each referral in
anonymized format to the Attorney General upon request.
4) Provides that state and local agencies are to use the
most cost-effective method possible including by electronic
mail or telephone.
5) States legislative intent to determine the best
evidence-based practices to reduce truancy, and that this
bill is not intended to encourage additional referrals,
complaints, petitions, or prosecutions, or to encourage
more serious sanctions for students.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 5
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 6
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 7
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
California is facing a school attendance crisis, with
dire consequences for our economy, our safety and our
children. Truancy and excessive absenteeism are not
new problems, yet they continue to cause costly,
long-term problems for the students, schools and the
community.
In the 2011-2012 school year, 1.8 million K-12
students in California were truant (i.e., had three
unexcused absences or tardy in excess of 30 minutes
during the school year). The state's overall truancy
rate was 29%, or nearly 1 out of every 3 children. For
public school districts that are already financially
challenged, including many within the 64th Assembly
District, the impact of truancy and chronic absence is
devastating. A 2013 report by Attorney General Kamala
D. Harris estimated that California school districts
lost approximately $1.4 billion in the 2010-2011
school year due to absences.
Students who miss school at an early age are more
likely to struggle academically and, in later years,
drop out entirely. Lacking an education, these
children are more likely to end up unemployed and at
risk of becoming involved in crime, both as victims
and as offenders.
Teachers, classified staff, administrators and school
districts work hard to ensure that students with
excessive absences return to the classroom. Yet
barriers continue to exist that make it difficult for
schools, school districts and law enforcement to work
together and remove barriers to attendance, including
mental and physical health challenges, substance
abuse, and housing and financial instability.
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 8
AB 2141 would enhance communication regarding truancy
cases referred for mediation and prosecution so that
school districts, superintendents, School Attendance
Review Boards, the Superintendent of Public
Instruction and the Attorney General can develop
effective truancy prevention and intervention
strategies.
By improving the ability for state and local agencies
to work together, AB 2141 will help prioritize truancy
reduction programs with successful outcomes and better
develop truancy intervention and prevention strategies
that keep children off the street and in the
classroom.
2. What This Bill Would Do
This bill would require a state or local agency conducting a
truancy-related mediation or prosecuting a student or parent for
a truancy-related matter to provide the outcome of the case to
the referring agency. As explained in the Senate Education
Committee analysis, typically school districts refer a student
who is truant to the local or county school attendance review
board (SARB). Some areas do not have a SARB but do have other
truancy programs administered by the probation department of
district attorney's office. While many agencies participate in
SARBs or other truancy programs, some methods of intervention
(such as probation or criminal complaints) may not involve
school personnel. It is very possible that school districts are
not informed of the results of truancy hearings or mediation, or
prosecution. This bill is intended to ensure the school
district or other referring agency receives information about
the dispensation of the case.
3. Outcomes Uncertain
It is not clear what referring agencies will do this the
information about outcomes. A prior version of this bill would
have required the agencies that receive the information to
provide the county superintendent of schools with a report at
the end of each school year. As currently drafted, this bills
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 9
intent is to collect information on best practices to reduce
truancy and not to encourage additional sanctions on pupils.
HOW WOULD REFERRING AGENCIES USE THIS INFORMATION?
WIC section 827 limits inspection of juvenile case files to
specified individuals. The author and members of the Committee
may wish to consider whether the information sharing proposed by
this bill would be allowable under current law.
4. Opposition
(More)
Public Counsel opposes this bill, stating in part:
We believe this bill will encourage more prosecutions
and/or the placement of more or stiffer penalties on
families and students due to the oversight from the
AG, the sharing of such data, and the new requirement
to report the "outcome," without any specification
regarding the type or purpose of the outcome. . . .
If the only outcome to be reported is whether or not
the parent or family was prosecuted or whether
mediation occurred, we still would have no data about
whether the referral improved student outcomes or
attendance. As such, we would be spending more of the
state's limited resources on data collection with
little purpose rather than on intervention and
prevention . . . which research has shown actually
improves attendance and achievement at the school
site. . . .
We also ask that the bill require a range of
"outcomes" to be reported, including, most
importantly, whether the referral, regardless of its
outcome, improved attendance and school outcomes over
the long term. . . .We also request that the data
collected be published on County Office of Education
websites so that the public can see what is happening
with respect to these referrals and the real outcomes
for children in order to make a determination as to
whether referral for prosecution or mediation is a
good use of state funds. Finally, we ask that data
collected regarding the students and families referred
for mediation and prosecution be disaggregated by
race, ethnicity, status of disability, and income
level to ensure that we are not disproportionately
targeting particular student groups and to address any
disparities with respect to such referrals.
This bill was amended in April to include the legislative intent
language described above, that it "is the intent of the
Legislature to determine the best evidence-based practices to
reduce truancy. Nothing in this section is intended to encourage
(More)
AB 2141 (Hall and Bonta)
Page 11
additional referrals, complaints, petitions, or prosecutions, or
to encourage more serious sanctions for pupils." In addition,
the bill was amended to state that, for "purposes of this
section, 'outcome' includes, but is not limited to, the act or
action taken by a state or local authority with respect to a
truancy-related mediation, prosecution, criminal complaint, or
petition and the effect of that act or action on the pupil
during the semester or trimester following the referral."
Members may wish to discuss whether this bill could be
strengthened with the following additional provisions:
Including not just the outcome of a referral (for
example, a 601 adjudication), but also any conditions or
terms imposed on the child or their parent as a result of
that outcome;
Providing authority for local school districts and
county offices of education to publish on their websites
aggregate data, containing no personally identifiable
information, collected pursuant to this bill to better
inform the public on efforts to address and reduce the
incidence of truancy, with such aggregate data considered a
public record as that term is understood under the
California Public Records Act ; and,
Require data to be disaggregated by race, ethnicity,
status of disability, status as foster youth, and income
level to further inform the public discussion on issues
concerning truancy and how they impact California
communities.
SHOULD THESE AMENDMENTS BE MADE?
***************