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 Amended June 9, 2014
Hearing date: June 17, 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:None known
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, AS SPECIFIED?
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.
This bill would provide that if the minor is before the court on
the basis of truancy, as described in subdivision (b) of Section
601, all of the following procedures and limitations shall
apply:
(1) The judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer shall not
proceed with a hearing unless both of the following have been
provided to the court:
(A) Clear and convincing evidence that the minor's school
has undertaken the actions specified in subdivisions (a), (b),
and (c) of Section 48264.5 of the Education Code.<2>
(B) A complete record of previous attempts to address the
minor's truancy.
(2) The court shall attempt to set the hearing outside of school
---------------------------
<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."
<2> This section generally describes steps which may be taken
with a pupil and his or her family the first, second, third and
fourth time a truancy report is issued.
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageG
hours, so as to avoid causing the minor to miss additional
school time.
(3) The minor and his or her parents shall be advised of the
minor's right to refuse consent to a hearing conducted upon a
written notice to appear, as specified.
(4) The minor's parents shall be permitted to participate in the
hearing.
(5) Upon a finding that the minor violated subdivision (b) of
Section 601, the judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer
shall direct his or her orders at addressing the causes of
truancy and shall make best efforts to seek the involvement of
any other parties who can help address the causes through the
provision of any required or necessary services, including, but
not limited to, the school or school district.
(6) The judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer may give the
minor the opportunity to demonstrate good attendance before
imposing any of the orders specified in paragraph (7). Upon
demonstration of good attendance, the court shall dismiss the
case.
(7) The judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer may do
either of the following:
(A) The court may order the minor to perform community
service work, as described in Section 48264.5 of the Education
Code, which may be performed at the minor's school.
(B) The court may restrict driving privileges in the manner
set forth in paragraph (5) of subdivision
(a). The minor may request removal of the driving restrictions
if he or she provides proof
of school attendance, high school graduation, GED completion, or
enrollment in adult education, a community college, or a
trade program. Any driving restriction
shall be removed at the time the minor attains 18 years of age.
(8) The judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer shall not
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageH
impose a fine or court fees.
This bill additionally would provide that if a minor is before
the judge, referee, or juvenile hearing officer on the basis of
truancy, jurisdiction shall be terminated upon the minor
attaining 18 years of age.
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
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
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageI
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
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.
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageJ
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.
COMMENTS
1. Recent Amendments; Opposition Removed
This bill reflects recent amendments taken by the author after
extensive discussions with the Youth Law Center, Public Counsel,
and the Labor/Community Strategy Center. As a result, these
entities have removed their opposition, thanking the author, his
staff and his sponsor for their "willingness to work with us in
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageK
crafting a bill that more directly focuses on the resolution of
truancy."
2. 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. This bill takes a variety of
precautions to ensure that actions taken by the IJTC
are focused on improving the student's attendance,
rather than ordering punishments.
3. 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. As recently amended, the bill lays out a number of
procedures and limitations to focus the court's process and
remedies on addressing the minor's truancy.
4. 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
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageL
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
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).)
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageM
5. Los Angeles County School Attendance Task Force Report
The Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of this bill
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
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageN
enforcement of daytime curfews has often been the
primary response to truancy, and extensive resources
and effort have been focused on using law enforcement
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).)
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageO
(More)
A few years ago, Los Angeles County started to move away from
criminalization of truancy:
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
(More)
AB 2195 (Achadjian)
PageQ
pp. 8-9.)
The Task Force found that even with these changes, the truancy
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.)
As recently amended, this bill appears to address a number the
policy concerns raised by the task force.
***************