BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 710
Page A
Date of Hearing: May 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
710 (Brown) - As Amended May 6, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Education |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill adds "youth on probation" to the definition of an
unduplicated pupil, for purposes of generating supplemental and
concentration grant funding under the Local Control Funding
AB 710
Page B
Formula (LCFF). Further, requires on or before July 1, 2017,
"youth on probation" to be included in each local control and
accountability plan (LCAP). Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE),
beginning no later than September 1, 2016, to modify
California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System
(CALPADS), to collect pupil probation data.
2)Requires local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter
schools, to provide this data using the information provided
by the juvenile courts. The individual pupil data regarding
probation status shall only be accessible to appropriate
school staff to the extent permitted by existing privacy and
confidentiality laws.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Ongoing Proposition 98/GF costs, likely in the millions of
dollars, to provide supplemental and concentration grant
funding for this new category of unduplicated pupils under
LCFF. Many youth on probation also fall into one or more of
the existing three categories that generate supplemental and
concentration grant funding (see comments below). Only youths
on probation who do not fall into at least one of the other
three categories would increase an individual district's LCFF
target. For illustration, assuming 20,000 juveniles generate
additional supplemental grant funding, the state would need to
provide approximately $35 million (Proposition 98/GF) to
districts serving these students.
2)Unknown Proposition 98/GF state mandated reimbursable costs to
school districts to collect pupil probation data and report
this information through CALPADS.
AB 710
Page C
3)Minor/absorbable costs to the California Department of
Education to update the LCAP template, update CALPADS, and to
provide training and information to LEAs on the new data
element.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. This bill adds a new category of students who
generate supplemental and concentration factor funding. This
will increase the LCFF targets for some districts.
2)Local Control Funding Formula. In 2013, the state implemented
a new funding formula for schools known as the Local Control
Funding Formula (LCFF). The new law replaces most previously
existing K-12 funding streams (revenue limit and categorical
programs) with per pupil grade span funding. Additionally,
the new formula provides targeted funding for low income,
English learner and foster youth students. With the
elimination of most state categorical programs, the LCFF also
shifts many spending decisions from the state to the local
level. To this end, LEAs are required to produce a local
control and accountability plan (LCAP) in consultation with
parents, teachers and the broader community. The LCAP ties
decisions about the use of resources to annual educational
goals. The LCFF allocates resources to LEAs as follows:
a) Base Grants are provided to all school districts and
charter schools. They are calculated on a per-pupil basis
(measured by student average daily attendance) according to
grade span (K-3, 4-6, 7-8, and 9-12) with adjustments that
increase the base rates for grades K-3 (10.4% of base rate)
and grades 9-12 (2.6% of base rate).
AB 710
Page D
b) Supplemental Grants provide an additional 20% in base
grant funding to school districts and charter schools for
each low-income student, EL, and foster youth (unduplicated
pupil count).
c) Concentration Grants provide an additional 50% above
base grant funding to school districts and charter schools
for each low-income student, EL, and foster youth that
exceed 55% of total enrollment. (Charter schools are capped
at the concentration rate of the school district in which
they are located).
The following chart reflects the 2014-15 targets<1>:
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Grade Spans |Base Rates |Supplemental |Concentration |
| | |Funding |Funding |
|---------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|K-3 |$7,741 |$1,548 |$3,870 |
|---------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|4-6 |$7,116 |$1,423 |$3,558 |
|---------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|7-8 |$7,328 |$1,466 |$3,664 |
|---------------+----------------+----------------+----------------|
|9-12 |$8,711 |$1,742 |$4,356 |
------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Juveniles 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,
---------------------------
<1>
Per the Governor's 2015 January Budget
AB 710
Page E
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 ward of the juvenile court and placed on
formal probation. According to a recent DOJ report, 37,615
juveniles were placed on wardship probation in 2013.
Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081