BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Kevin de León, Chair AB 2276 (Bocanegra) - Transfers from Juvenile Court Schools Amended: June 17, 2014 Policy Vote: Education 6-1 Urgency: No Mandate: Yes Hearing Date: August 14, 2014 Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED. Bill Summary: AB 2276 makes various changes to requirements relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile court schools to district schools. AB 2276 also requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) to convene a statewide stakeholder group to develop a model for the immediate transfer of educational records, uniform systems for calculating and awarding credits, transition planning, and the immediate enrollment of pupils who are being transferred from juvenile court schools, and to report recommendations for state action to the Legislature by January 1, 2016. Fiscal Impact: Stakeholder process: Significant costs in 2015-16 to the California Department of Education (CDE) to convene the stakeholder group, to staff its meetings and work, and to write the report. Staff costs are likely to be $100,000 (General Fund) for 1 PY; costs for the actual stakeholder meetings (including travel expenses and meeting space) will depend on the size of the group and the location of its members, but would likely be in the tens of thousands of dollars (General Fund). Report recommendations: Significant ongoing General Fund cost pressure for the state to implement the group's recommendations. Mandate: Potentially significant reimbursable state mandate on county offices of education (COEs) and county probation departments to have joint transition planning policies, as specified. Local cost pressure: This bill "strongly encourages" local educational agencies (LEAs) to enter into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and create joint policies, systems, AB 2276 (Bocanegra) Page 1 including data sharing systems, transition centers, and other joint structures that will allow for the immediate transfer of educational records, create uniform systems for calculating and awarding course credit, and allow for the immediate enrollment of pupils transferring from juvenile court schools. To the extent that LEAs consider the state's "strong encouragement," the bill creates cost pressure to take on that additional workload. Background: Existing law provides that public school or classes in any juvenile hall or home, day center, juvenile ranch or camp, regional youth educational facility, or Orange County youth correctional center, or in any group home housing 25 or more children and operating one or more additional sites under a central administration, with acceptable school structures at one or more centrally located sites to serve the single or composite populations of juvenile court school pupils shall be known as juvenile court schools. (Education Code § 48645.1) Existing law requires the county board of education to provide for the administration and operation of juvenile court schools by the county superintendent of schools or by contract with the respective governing boards of the elementary, high school, or unified school district in which the juvenile court school is located. It further specifies that juvenile court schools shall be conducted in a manner prescribed by the county board of education and requires the schooldays to be 240 minutes. (EC § 48645.2 et seq.) Existing law further requires that pupils expelled from school for serious offenses such as possessing a firearm, brandishing a knife, causing serious physical injury, selling a controlled substance or committing a sexual assault, are prohibited from enrolling in any school other than a community school, community day school, or juvenile court school. (EC § 48915.2) The governing board of a school district that receives a request for enrollment from a pupil who has been expelled from another school district, for acts other than the most serious offenses, must hold a hearing to determine whether the individual poses a continuing danger to pupils or employees. If the board finds the pupil does not pose a danger, the pupil must be permitted to enroll if the pupil has established residence in the district or AB 2276 (Bocanegra) Page 2 enrolled pursuant to an interdistrict agreement. (EC § 48915.1(a)(e)) Existing law prohibits a pupil from being denied enrollment or readmission to a public school solely on the basis that he or she has had contact with the juvenile justice system, including arrest, adjudication by a juvenile court, supervision by a probation officer, detention in a juvenile facility, or enrollment in a juvenile court school. (EC § 48645.5) A school district governing board, upon voting to expel a pupil, may suspend the enforcement of the expulsion order for up to one calendar year and may, as a condition of the suspension of the enforcement, assign the pupil to a school, class or program that is deemed appropriate for the rehabilitation of the pupil. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation assignment, the governing board must reinstate the pupil in a school within the district and may also order the expungement of any or all records of the expulsion proceedings. (EC § 48917) Proposed Law: This bill makes various changes to requirements relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile court schools to district schools. Specifically, this bill: 1) "Strongly encourages" LEAs to enter into MOUs and create joint policies, systems, including data sharing systems, transition centers, and other joint structures that will allow for the immediate transfer of educational records, create uniform systems for calculating and awarding course credit, and allow for the immediate enrollment of pupils transferring from juvenile court schools. 2) Requires that a COE and county probation department have a joint transition planning policy that includes collaboration with LEAs to improve communication regarding dates of release and the educational needs of pupils who have had contact with the juvenile justice system; to coordinate immediate school placement and enrollment; and to ensure that probation officers have the information they need to support the return of pupils who are being transferred from juvenile court schools to public schools. 3) Requires the SPI and the BSCC to convene a statewide AB 2276 (Bocanegra) Page 3 group with stakeholders from the community, advocacy organizations, and education and probation department leaders to develop a model and study existing successful county programs and policies for the immediate transfer of educational records, uniform systems for calculating and awarding credits, transition planning, and the immediate enrollment of pupils who are being transferred from juvenile court schools. 4) Requires the statewide group to report its findings and provide recommendations for state action to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2016. Related Legislation: SB 1111 (Lara) amends the process for referrals to a county community school and also establish the right of a student to reenroll in his or her former school or another school upon completion of the term of involuntary transfer to a county community school. SB 1111 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. SB 744 (Lara), introduced in 2013, was substantially similar to SB 1111 and vetoed by the Governor with the following message: "This bill imposes new and rather specific requirements on the way local schools handle disruptive students. The recently enacted Local Control Funding Formula has created a new regime of greater equity and increased accountability at the local level. I'm putting my trust in the skill and good faith of local educators to manage the issues that are the subject of this bill in a caring and responsible way." SB 1088 (Price) Ch. 381/2012 enacted a prohibition against denying a pupil from being enrolled or readmitted to a public school solely on the basis that he or she has had contact with the juvenile justice system. Staff Comments: This bill places new requirements on state and local agencies, relative to the transfer of pupils from juvenile court schools to district schools. At the state level, it requires the CDE and BSCC to convene a statewide stakeholder group including individuals from "the community", advocacy organizations, and education and probation department leaders, AB 2276 (Bocanegra) Page 4 and tasks them with developing a model and studying existing successful county programs and policies for the immediate transfer of educational records, uniform systems for calculating and awarding credits, transition planning, and the immediate enrollment of pupils who are being transferred from juvenile court schools. This is a significant undertaking, especially with such a broad stakeholder group. It is likely that the CDE and BSCC will require 1 PY each to staff this process throughout the state, and prepare the report. At the local level, this bill requires that, "as part of their existing responsibilities for coordinating education and services for youth in the juvenile justice system," the COE and county probation department have a joint transition planning policy that includes collaboration with "relevant local educational agencies" to improve communication and coordination of transfers from juvenile court schools. COEs and county probation departments do have responsibilities to coordinate around juvenile transfers, but it is unclear whether having joint policies would be considered by the Commission on State Mandates to be a higher level of service than what is required in their existing responsibilities. At a minimum, the requirements to have policies that also include communication with relevant LEAs (however interpreted) will likely be deemed a reimbursable state mandate. If every COE and county probation department spent just 10 hours developing policies and communicating them to appropriate staff, reimbursable costs would exceed $100,000. This bill also "strongly encourages" LEAs to enter into MOUs and create joint policies, systems, including data sharing systems, transition centers, and other joint structures to create uniform systems for calculating and awarding course credit, and allow for the immediate enrollment of pupils transferring from juvenile court schools. This requirement does not have the force of law, but it does create cost pressure on LEAs to do extensive local work strongly encouraged by the Legislature. Committee Amendments make the stakeholder group (convening and recommendations) the responsibility of the SPI, in consultation with the BSCC. AB 2276 (Bocanegra) Page 5