BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A 2013-2014 Regular Session B 2 1 9 AB 2195 (Achadjian) 5 As Introduced February 20, 2014 Hearing date: May 13, 2014 Welfare and Institutions Code AA:mc TRUANCY: INFORMAL JUVENILE AND TRAFFIC COURT HISTORY Source: San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Prior Legislation: None Support: Judicial Council of California; Chief Probation Officers of California; San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Office; San Luis Obispo District Attorney; Atascadero Unified School District; Coast Unified School District; San Luis Obispo County Office of Education; San Miguel Joint School District; Templeton Unified School District; Juvenile Court Judges of California Opposition:Public Counsel Law Center; Youth Law Center Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 74 - Noes 0 KEY ISSUE SHOULD A STATUS OFFENSE DUE TO HAVING FOUR OR MORE TRUANCIES WITHIN (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageB ONE SCHOOL YEAR BE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE INFORMAL JUVENILE AND TRAFFIC COURT? PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to add status offenders to the jurisdiction of the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court where the status offense is due to having four or more truancies within one school year, as specified. General Compulsory Education Law Current law requires each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years old, not otherwise exempted, to be subject to compulsory full-time education and attend the public full-time school for the full time designated as the length of the school day by the governing board of the school district in which the person's parent or guardian resides, and that each parent or guard or other person having control or charge of the pupil shall ensure that pupil's enrollment and attendance. (Ed. Code § 48200.) Current law defines a "truant" as a pupil subject to compulsory full-time education or to compulsory continuation education who is absent from school without a valid excuse three full days in one school year or tardy or absent for more than a 30-minute period during the schoolday without a valid excuse on three occasions in one school year, or any combination thereof; and requires the pupil to be reported to the attendance supervisor or to the superintendent of the school district. (Ed. Code § 48268, subd. (a).) Current law authorizes the attendance supervisor or his or her designee, a peace officer, a school administrator or his or her designee, or a probation officer to arrest or assume temporary custody, during school hours, of any minor subject to compulsory full-time education or to compulsory continuation education (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageC found away from his or her home and who is absent from school without valid excuse within the county, city, or city and county, or school district. (Ed. Code § 48264.) Wards of the Juvenile Court - Status Offenders - Truancy Current law states if a minor has four or more truancies within one school year as defined, 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. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, subd. (b).) Current law authorizes any peace officer or school administrator to issue a notice to appear to a minor who is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to these sections related to truancy. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 601, subd. (d).) Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court Current law authorizes the juvenile court to appoint subordinate judicial officers one or more persons of suitable experience, who may be a probation officer or assistant or deputy probation officers, to serve as juvenile hearing officers on a full or part-time basis. A juvenile court shall be known as the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court when a hearing officer appointed pursuant to this section hears a case specified in the provisions below. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 255.) Current law enumerates numerous features and authorities of the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court, as specified. (Welf. & (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageD Inst. Code §§ 256.5, et seq.) Current law provides that subject to the orders of the juvenile court, a juvenile hearing officer may hear and dispose of any case in which a minor under the age of 18 years as of the date of the alleged offense is charged with the following specified offenses: a) Any violation of the Vehicle Code, except sections of that code related to driving under the influence, not declared to be a felony; b) Trespassing, as specified; c) A violation of the Fish and Game Code not declared to be a felony; d) A violation of any of the equipment provisions of the Harbors and Navigation Code or the vessel registration provisions of the Vehicle Code; e) A violation of any provision of state or local law relating to traffic offenses, loitering or curfew, or evasion of fares on a public transportation system, as defined, f) A violation of rules and regulations for control of traffic and parking areas; g) Prohibited acts committed on or in facilities or vehicles of public or subsidized transportation systems or unauthorized use of vending and slot machines, as specified; h) A violation of the rules and regulations established by the Department of Parks and Recreation; i) A misdemeanor related to illegal dumping and destroying or defacing of property owned or managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, as specified; j) Purchase, attempted purchase, or consumption of an (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageE alcoholic beverage by a person under the age of 21 years of age; presenting or possessing false evidence of age for the purpose of purchasing any alcoholic beverage; or possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under 21 years of age in public place, as specified; k) Public intoxication, as specified; l) Misdemeanor vandalism, involving defacing property with paint or any other liquid, as specified; m) Purchase or possession of aerosol paint container by a person under the age of 18 years, as specified; n) Possession of not more than 28.5 grams of marijuana, as specified; o) Any infraction; or p) Any misdemeanor for which the minor is cited to appear by a probation officer, as specified. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 256.) This bill would add status offenders to the jurisdiction of a juvenile hearing officer where the status offense, as specified, is due to having four or more truancies, as defined in Section (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageF 48260 of the Education Code,<1> within one school year. 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 --------------------------- <1> Education Code section 48260 provides: "48260. (a) A pupil subject to compulsory full-time education or to compulsory continuation education who is absent from school without a valid excuse three full days in one school year or tardy or absent for more than a 30-minute period during the schoolday without a valid excuse on three occasions in one school year, or any combination thereof, shall be classified as a truant and shall be reported to the attendance supervisor or to the superintendent of the school district. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), it is the intent of the Legislature that school districts shall not change the method of attendance accounting provided for in existing law and shall not be required to employ period-by-period attendance accounting. (c) For purposes of this article, a valid excuse includes, but is not limited to, the reasons for which a pupil shall be excused from school pursuant to Sections 48205 and 48225.5 and may include other reasons that are within the discretion of school administrators and, based on the facts of the pupil's circumstances, are deemed to constitute a valid excuse." (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageG otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under 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." (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageH 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 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 February 18, 2014, the state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33 prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates. 8,768 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 (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageI 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. COMMENTS 1. Stated Need for This Bill The author states: This bill would provide a much-needed, moderate alternative for resolving cases of truancy. The existing options are either unenforceable or too complex and harsh, making it difficult for school officials and probation officers to quickly and efficiently address this problem. Many probation officers are hesitant to send students to the formal Juvenile Court, where they can be classified as a "status offender" and become a ward of the court. Truancy issues are more appropriately handled in the more informal, decriminalized setting of the Informal Juvenile Traffic Court. 2. What This Bill Would Do As stated above, this bill would add status offenders to the jurisdiction of a juvenile hearing officer where the status offense is due to having four or more truancies within one school year. 3. Current Penalties for Truancy Under current law, the first time a truancy report is issued, the pupil, and as appropriate the parent or guardian, may be requested to attend a meeting with a school counselor or other school designee to discuss the root causes of the attendance issue and develop a joint plan to improve the pupil's attendance. (Ed. Code § 48264.5, subd. (a).) The second time a (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageJ truancy report is issued within the same school year, the pupil may be given a written warning by a peace officer. A written warning may be kept at the school for not less than two years or until the pupil graduates or transfers from that school. A record of the written warning may be maintained by the law enforcement agency in accordance with the agency's policies and procedures. The pupil may also be assigned by the school to an afterschool or weekend study program located within the same county as the pupil's school. If the pupil fails to successfully complete the assigned study program, the pupil shall be subject to the provisions governing the third time a truancy report is required. (Ed. Code § 48264.5, subd. (b).) The third time a truancy report is issued within the same year, the pupil shall be classified as a habitual truant, as defined, and may be referred to, and required to attend, an attendance review board or a truancy mediation program, or other comparable program. If the pupil does not successfully complete the program, the pupil shall be subject to the provisions governing the fourth time a truancy report is required. (Ed. Code § 48264.5, subd. (c).) The fourth time a truancy report is issued within the same year, the pupil may be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court that may adjudge the juvenile to be a ward of the court. If the pupil is adjudged a ward of the court, the pupil shall be required to do one of the following: performance at a court-approved community services sponsored by either a public or private nonprofit agency for not less than 20 hours but not more than 40 hours over a period of 90 days, during a time other than the pupil's hours of school attendance or employment; payment of a fine by the pupil of not more than $50 for which a parent or guardian may be jointly liable; attendance of a court-approved truancy prevention program; or suspension or revocation of driving privileges. (Ed. Code § 48264.5, subd. (d).) 4. Los Angeles County School Attendance Task Force Report The Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of this bill (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageK explained that in January 2012, Los Angeles County School Attendance Task Force released a report with recommendations for schools, juvenile courts, law enforcement, municipalities, parents, guardians and caregivers, and communities, in order to increase school attendance and decrease truancy. The Task Force found that research supports school-based rather than law enforcement-based interventions as the most effective means to improve student attendance rates. The strategies range from utilizing rewards and attendance incentives, determining root causes of truancy, maximizing partnerships with local service agencies that address the root causes, and referring truancy issues to law-enforcement agencies only as a last resort and only after documentation of multiple failed interventions. (See Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council, A Comprehensive Approach to Improving Student Attendance in Los Angeles County: A Report from the School Attendance Task Force (Jan. 2012).) The report discussed Los Angeles County's approach to truancy: "In 1995, the Los Angeles City Council enacted Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) § 45.04, which makes it unlawful, with limited exceptions, for any youth under the age of 18 to be in a public place during the hours of the day when the youth's school is in session. A similar code section-Los Angeles County Code 13.57.010, et seq.-applies to youth in Los Angeles County jurisdictions policed by the Sheriff's Department. Almost every city in California has enacted similar ordinances over the last two decades: In Los Angeles County, this type of ticket is referred to the Informal Juvenile and Traffic Court (IJTC), and has been punishable with a fine and the possible loss of driving privileges. Unfortunately, in the absence of a comprehensive, research-based approach to addressing attendance-related issues in Los Angeles, the enforcement of daytime curfews has often been the primary response to truancy, and extensive resources and effort have been focused on using law enforcement (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageL to ticket and cite students. For example, between 2005 and 2009, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles Schools Police Department (LASPD) issued more than 47,000 tickets under the Los Angeles City curfew ordinance. Data related to curfew citations in other parts of Los Angeles County have not been collected or analyzed. The Los Angeles City curfew ordinance's burdens have fallen most heavily on low-income communities and on families who are least able to afford them. They include: a) Hefty fines ($250 per citation plus court fees, which can result in fines in the thousands of dollars); b) For every ticket issued, the loss for students of at least one day of school-and in some cases up to three days-to attend court; c) Lost average daily attendance funding, especially to the lowest-performing schools, for each day a student misses to attend court; d) Lost earnings by parents who must accompany children to court; and, e) Accumulated fines that low-income families cannot afford to pay, which result in youth being denied employment opportunities and driver's licenses, further preventing them from moving forward as productive citizens. (Los Angeles County Education Coordinating Council, A Comprehensive Approach to Improving Student Attendance in Los Angeles County: A Report from the School Attendance Task Force (Jan. 2012) pp. 5-6 (italics added).) A few years ago, Los Angeles County started to move away from criminalization of truancy: (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageM The Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Los Angeles City Attorney have both implemented truancy intervention programs and have dedicated staff to work with students and parents at an early stage of truancy identification. The District Attorney's Abolish Chronic Truancy Program (ACT) has been studied by the Rand Corporation and is an American Bar Association model program for addressing truancy. The ACT program, which served approximately 58,000 students and parents from September of 2006 to June of 2011, deals primarily with elementary-aged children and operates by sending deputy district attorneys and hearing officers into schools to work with students and families. At participating schools, students with attendance issues are identified and referred to the program. Students assigned to the program are longitudinally tracked for both further truancy and for subsequent involvement in the juvenile delinquency system. Annual internal reviews have demonstrated a 50 percent reduction in truancy rates among students referred to the program, and only 1 percent of students who are in the ACT program are later identified by the Los Angeles Probation Department as being involved in the justice system. The City Attorney's Truancy Prevention Program has educated over 250,000 families about the importance of attending school. The program's letters have directed over 70,000 families to general assemblies where families are taught the legal and practical consequences of truancy. Additionally, almost 4,000 families have been referred to City Attorney Hearings for one-on-one intervention. From these families, counselors have taken over 200 to SARBs and have referred 70 families for court intervention that includes diversion in lieu of prosecution." (Id. at pp. 8-9.) The Task Force found that even with these changes, the truancy (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageN levels remained high, calling for a countywide effort to address the problem. After holding several meetings with stakeholders, the Task Force recommended several reforms within schools, municipalities, parents, law enforcement and courts. Some of the recommendations by the Task Force related to the IJTC include, (a) at the youth's option, community service in lieu of a monetary fine for any offense adjudicated in the IJTC; (b) dismissal of any citation for which the evidence shows the youth was late to school or en route to school; and (c) informing youth and parents of their rights in the IJTC. (Id. at p. 35.) Currently, a juvenile hearing officer has jurisdiction over truancy cases where a pupil is cited for violating curfew ordinances. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 256.) This bill will allow juvenile hearing officers to hear truancy cases without requiring a citation under one of these local ordinances, if the pupil has had four or more truancies within one school year. Having truancy cases heard by a juvenile hearing officer may be more appropriate in certain circumstances; however, as the Task Force report indicates, the penalties may result in fines that the pupil or parent is unable to pay, or missed days at school and work in order to make it to court dates. Adopting some of the recommendations found in the Task Force report may alleviate these adverse consequences. 5. Argument in Support The sponsor of this bill, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, submits in part: At times there is a need to address a minor's truancy through the Court process. This occurs after all volunteer services have been exhausted and there is still no change in the minor's behavior. The filing of [Welfare and Institutions Code] WIC 601(b) petition allows this to happen. However, this is a lengthy process, as the petition requests that the minor be made a ward of the court. This disposition at times may not always be the most appropriate and a less involved process in the Juvenile Informal Traffic (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageO Court would accomplish the same outcome in a timelier manner. The School Resource Officers in San Luis Obispo County have expressed a need for many years on a way in which they can hold habitual truants accountable through the Court absent the filing of WIC 601(b) petition. Assembly Bill 2195 would allow this to happen. This bill would allow a Juvenile Hearing Officer to impose immediate and certain consequences upon those minors who have failed other truancy interventions. The consequence would range from community work service to the loss of a drivers' license." WOULD THIS BILL PROVIDE A MORE SWIFT AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO TRUANCY? (More) 6. Opposition The Youth Law Center, which opposes this bill, states in part: Although we agree that handling truancy through the infraction process is preferable to handling such cases as formal juvenile court wardship petitions, the proposed process still criminalizes truancy. It subjects children from poor or struggling families to substantial fines - up to $250 (or more, if multiple infractions are charged), missed days of school and work, and a series of additional court requirements. It subjects young people to court proceedings without the benefit of an attorney who could determine whether there is a defense or there are facts in mitigation. Most importantly, it does nothing to address the complex issues that result in chronic truancy. . . . A.B. 2195 seeks to use the very same flawed mechanism by specifically including truancy in the definition of offenses that may be heard in Informal Juvenile and Traffic Courts. This measure is likely to make things worse rather than better for truant youth and their families. While we oppose using this approach to truancy altogether, if the measure goes forward, it should, as recommended by the Assembly Public Safety Committee Analysis (p. 8), include the protections identified as needed in Los Angeles County. Those protections include specifically allowing community service in lieu of a monetary fine; dismissal of any citation for which the evidence shows the youth was late to school or en route to school; and informing youth and parents of their rights in the proceedings. (Assembly Public Safety Committee Analysis, p. 8, citing the Los Angeles School Attendance Task Force Report at p. 35.) There should also be specific provision for ability to pay and a limitation on the amount of fines when (More) AB 2195 (Achadjian) PageQ multiple infractions are involved (the current statute bizarrely specifies that the court may consider the minor's ability to pay but not the ability of the minor's family to pay. (Welf. & Inst. Code § 258, subd. (a)(3).) WOULD THIS BILL SUBJECT TRUANT MINORS AND THEIR FAMILIES TO SEVERE SANCTIONS WHICH WOULD NOT ADDRESS CHRONIC TRUANCY? WOULD THE AMENDMENTS SUGGESTED ABOVE ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS? ***************