BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1059 (Liu)
Hearing Date: 05/24/2010 Amended: 05/19/2010
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: ED 8-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 1059 would clarify the "district of
residence" for a seriously emotionally disturbed pupil with
exceptional needs who has been detained in a juvenile hall and
is subsequently placed in a residential treatment facility.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
County Offices Minor costs for notifications,
appeals General*
*Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
Current law requires local education agencies to provide special
education and those related services and designated instruction
and services contained in a pupil's individualized education
program (IEP) that are necessary for the pupil to benefit
educationally from his or her instructional program. Current
law requires a local educational agency (LEA) to appoint a
surrogate parent for a pupil under specified circumstances.
Current law establishes several ways in which a pupil may comply
with residency requirements for school district attendance other
than the residence of the pupil's parent or guardian, including
a placement within the boundaries of that school district in a
group home or foster home. Current law requires county boards
of education to administer and operate juvenile court schools.
This bill addresses confusion as to which LEA is responsible for
the provision and payment of education costs among the subset of
seriously emotionally disturbed pupils with exceptional needs in
the foster care system that have been detained in a juvenile
hall and who are subsequently placed in a residential treatment
facility.
While residing in the juvenile hall, the county board of
education has responsibility for the provision of education,
including the provision of special education services.
Generally, when a pupil is released from the juvenile hall, the
responsibility for their education returns to the district in
which their parent or guardian resides. If no parent or
guardian is in the picture, the responsibility for the payment
and provision of educational services will fall to the district
in which the residential facility is located. In some cases,
however, the recommended placement may be to an out-of-state
facility. In such an instance, it is not always clear which
district is responsible for the costs and provision of the
pupil's education. This confusion has occasionally led to
litigation and to a delay in the provision of appropriate
services for the pupil.
Page 2
SB 1059 (Liu)
This bill would clarify which LEA is responsible for educational
costs in these situations, as follows:
For pupils who have a parent, guardian, or individual
acting as a parent (e.g., grandparent, stepparent, or other
relative), the responsible district is the district in which
the parent, guardian, or individual acting as parent
resides.
For pupils who have a foster or surrogate parent, as
defined, the responsible district is the district in which
the pupil will be placed.
For pupils who have a foster or surrogate parent and who
receive a placement to an out-of-state facility, the
responsible district would be the last district in which the
pupil was enrolled prior to the pupil's detainment in
juvenile hall.
The bill would require the county office of education to
determine the responsible school district and notify the
district of its responsibility. The bill further allows
impacted districts to appeal the designation of responsibility
to the county board of education, which would be required to
issue a decision within 60 days. This decision would be final.
As LEAs are already responsible for the provision of special
education services, the clarification of responsibility in these
narrow instances (there are perhaps fewer than 100 cases,
statewide) does not represent a new cost, though it may result
in a shift of costs among LEAs in some instances. There is a
potential that county offices of education would file mandate
claims pursuant to the responsibility for notification and for
the handling of any appeals that may arise, but these costs
would likely be minimal given the small number of pupils
affected by the bill.
In order to clarify that the bill's provisions do not extend to
pupils to all pupils receiving services at a juvenile court
school, staff recommends amending the bill to replace "juvenile
court school" with "juvenile hall" in line 10 of page 7 and to
make the same change starting on line 27 of page 9.