BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 710
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 710
(Brown) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Youth on probation: local control funding formula:
local control and accountability plans
SUMMARY: Adds "youths of probation" to the local control
funding formula (LCFF) and local control and accountability
plans (LCAPs). Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires youths on probation to be added to the LCFF for
county offices of education (COEs), school districts, and
charter schools commencing with the 2016-17 fiscal year.
2)Requires COE and school district LCAPs to include youths on
probation on or before July 1, 2017.
3)Defines "youth on probation" to mean a child who is the
subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 602 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, which references any person who
is under 18 years of age when he or she violates any law of
this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any
city or county of this state defining crime other than an
ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, except
for persons aged 14 or older who are alleged to have committed
AB 710
Page 2
murder or other specified sex crimes.
4)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
modify the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
System (CALPADS) no later than September 1, 2016 to collect
data provided to local education agencies by the juvenile
courts regarding the pupil on probation, the offense found to
have been committed, and the disposition of the case.
Provides that this data shall only be accessible as necessary
to appropriate school staff to the extent permitted by
existing privacy and confidentiality laws.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes the LCFF, which provides base funding to all local
education agencies (LEAs) plus a supplemental grant and
concentration factor funding based on the number and
percentage of pupils in the LEA that are either an English
learner, eligible for free or reduced-price meals, or in
foster care.
2)Requires school districts and COEs to adopt and annually
update LCAPs, which must include a description of annual goals
for all pupils and for all numerically significant subgroups,
including ethnic subgroups, socioeconomically disadvantaged
pupils, English learners, pupils with disabilities, and foster
youth.
3)Establishes CALPADS, which is administered by the CDE, and
which collects specified data on pupil demographics and
academic performance.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
AB 710
Page 3
COMMENTS: This bill adds youths on probation to the LCFF and
LCAPs. The LCFF provides three-tiered funding to school
districts, COEs, and charter schools (collectively referred to
as local education agencies, or LEAs): a base rate,
supplemental funding, and concentration factor funding. The
formula establishes a target level of funding for each LEA.
Because actual funding is not yet sufficient to fully fund each
LEA's target, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates
that the Governor's budget proposal will fund 85% of the
statewide target in 2015-16.
The base rate is an equal amount per average daily attendance
(ADA) in four grade spans, as follows (the amounts reflect the
2014-15 targets):
K-grade 3, $7,741
Grades 4-6. $7,116
Grades 7-8, $7,328
Grades 9-12, $8,711
Supplemental funding is 20% of the base rate and is received for
each student who is either low income (LI), an English learner
(EL), or in foster care. (Students who fall into more than one
category are counted only once.) The concentration factor
equals 50% of the base rate and is received for each LI, EL, or
foster youth in excess of 55% of the LEA's total enrollment.
AB 710
Page 4
By adding youth on probation to the LCFF, this bill adds a new
category of students who generate supplemental and concentration
factor funding. This will increase the LCFF targets for some
districts. However, many youth on probation also fall into one
or more of the other three categories. Only youths on probation
who do not fall into at least one of the other three categories
would increase an LEA's LCFF target.
Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Each school
district and COE is required to adopt and annually update an
LCAP. Among other things, each LCAP is required to provide a
description of the LEA's annual goals for all pupils, including
pupils in each of the following numerically significant
subgroups:
Ethnic subgroups
Socioeconomically disadvantaged
English learners
Pupils with disabilities
Foster youth
AB 710
Page 5
This bill adds youth on probation to the categories of pupils
that that must be addressed by the LCAP.
Who are youth on probation? A juvenile may be arrested for a
misdemeanor or felony offense or for committing a status
offense. Status offenses are acts that are offenses only when
committed by a juvenile, such as curfew violations, truancy,
running away, and incorrigibility. The California Department of
Justice (DOJ), in its annual report, Juvenile Justice in
California, reports that there were 96,937 juvenile arrests in
2013. The arrests fell into the following categories:
Felony arrests (30,812 or 31.8% of total)
Misdemeanor arrests (54,315 or 56.0% of total)
Status offense (11,810 or 12.2% of total)
Arrests may result in dismissal, deferred judgment or transfer,
remandment to adult court, or one of three types of probation:
informal probation, non-ward probation, or wardship probation.
Wardship probation, which accounted for 84% of probation
outcomes in 2013, is probation in which a minor is declared a
AB 710
Page 6
ward of the juvenile court and placed on formal probation.
According to the DOJ report, 37,615 juveniles were placed on
wardship probation in 2013. About 52% of them were sent to
their own home or a relative's home. Most juveniles on
probation are of color, from a low income family, and male.
Bigger challenges, lower outcomes. According to information
provided by the author's office, probationary youth present a
number of challenges, including:
Their academic level rarely exceeds elementary grade
levels
Between 30% and 60% have special education needs and
disabilities
Close to one-third have been subjected to
physical/sexual abuse
About 20% report "wish[ing] they were dead"
Between 50% and 75% have diagnosable mental disorders
These challenges result in lower outcomes, in large part because
schools are either not willing or able to accommodate their
AB 710
Page 7
needs. According to an April 2012 report from the Georgetown
Law School Human Rights Institute Acts-Finding Mission ("Kept
Out: Barriers to Meaningful Education in the School-to-Prison
Pipeline"), "Schools use a variety of excuses and evade general
school-access requirements in order to keep these students out."
Techniques to exclude probationary students from enrollment
include citing safety concerns, arguing they are too old and/or
have too few credits, and transferring them to another school
that is physically inaccessible. The report notes that high
stakes accountability systems, such as No Child Left Behind,
gives schools an incentive to deny enrollment to probationary
students, because their low performance on standardized tests
brings the school average down.
Arguments in support. According to the author's office, adding
youth on probation to the LCAP will require districts to
recognize the presence of these students in their schools and
develop programs to better serve their needs. Since this
requirement applies only to students who are actually enrolled
in the district or COE, there is the potential that it may add
to the incentives to deny enrollment identified by the
Georgetown Law School report. However, the author's office
reports that there are nearly 40,000 probationary youth already
enrolled in California schools, and this bill will help ensure
they are included in district and COE plans to improve pupil
outcomes.
Committee amendments. This bill requires the CDE to modify
CALPADS to collect pupil probation data, but does not specify
what data to collect. Staff recommends that the bill be amended
to specify the probationary status of the pupil, including the
AB 710
Page 8
beginning and ending dates of the probation.
Prohibition on expanding CALPADS. This bill conflicts with a
current prohibition against expanding CALPADS. Specifically,
provision 18 of item number 6110-001-0890 of the Budget Act
states, in part, "the [CDE] shall not add additional data
elements to CALPADS, require local educational agencies to use
the data collected through the CALPADS for any purpose, or
otherwise expand or enhance the system beyond the data elements
and functionalities that are identified in the most current
approved Feasibility Study and Special Project Reports and the
CALPADS Data Guide v4.1."
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Advancement Project
Children's Defense Fund
Fight Crime/Invest in Kids, California
Youth Justice Coalition
AB 710
Page 9
Youth Law Center
Opposition
California Federation of Teachers
Analysis Prepared by:Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087