BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1317
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 30, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
SB 1317 (Leno) - As Amended: June 16, 2010
[This bill has been double referred to the Assembly Public
Safety Committee and was heard as it relates to the issues under
its jurisdiction.]
SENATE VOTE : 21-9
SUBJECT : Truancy
SUMMARY : Enacts a new misdemeanor with specified penalties for
parents of a child in Kindergarten through grade eight who is
deemed to be a chronic truant, as specified; also authorizes
courts to establish a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) program
to handle cases involving parents or guardians of elementary
school pupils who are chronically truant. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Defines a "chronic truant" to be a pupil who is subject to
compulsory full-time education or to compulsory continuation
education who is absent form school without valid excuse for
10% or more of the schooldays in one school year, from the
date of enrollment to the current date.
2)Provides that a parent or guardian of a pupil of six years of
age or older and in Kindergarten or any of Grades 1 through 8,
whose child is a chronic truant, and who has failed to
reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil's school
attendance, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine
not exceeding $2,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail
not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
3)Authorizes a parent or guardian guilty of the misdemeanor
specified in 2) above to participate in a deferred entry of
judgment (DEJ) program.
4)Authorizes a superior court to establish a DEJ program that
includes the following components, in order to adjudicate
cases involving parents or guardians of elementary school
chronic truants.
SB 1317
Page 2
a) A dedicated court calendar.
b) Leadership by a judge of the superior court in that
county.
c) Service referrals for parents or guardians, including,
but not necessarily limited to, all of the following:
i) Case management.
ii) Mental and physical health services.
iii) Parenting classes and support.
iv) Substance abuse treatment.
v) Child care and housing.
d) A clear statement that:
i) In lieu of trial, the court may grant a DEJ if the
defendant pleads guilty to each charge and waives time
for the pronouncement of judgment.
ii) Upon the defendant's compliance with the terms and
conditions set forth by the court and agreed to by the
defendant, and upon the motion of the prosecuting
attorney, the court will dismiss the charge or charges
against the defendant.
iii) Failure to comply with any condition under the
program may result in the prosecuting attorney or the
court making a motion for entry of judgment, whereupon
the court will render a finding of guilty to the charge
or charges pled, enter judgment, and schedule a
sentencing hearing as otherwise provided in this code.
e) An explanation of criminal record retention and
disposition resulting from participation in the DEJ
program, and the defendant's rights relative to answering
questions about his or her arrest and the DEJ following
successful completion of the program.
5)Requires that funding for the DEJ program be derived solely
from non-state sources.
6)Prohibits a prosecutor from charging a parent or guardian of
an elementary school pupil who is a chronic truant, with both
the misdemeanor specified in 2) above and contributing to the
delinquency of a minor because of a truant child.
SB 1317
Page 3
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires that each person between the ages of 6 and 18 years,
not otherwise exempted, be subject to compulsory full-time
education and attend the public full-time day school or
continuation school or classes in which their parent or
guardian resides, and that each parent, guardian or other
person having control or charge of the pupil ensure that
pupils enrollment and attendance.
2)Defines a truant as any 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 any 30-minute
period during the schoolday without a valid excuse on three
occasions in one school year, or any combination thereof.
3)Requires a school district, upon a pupil's initial
classification as a truant, to notify the pupil's parent or
guardian that:
a) The pupil is:
i) Truant.
ii) May be subject to prosecution
iii) May be subject to suspension, restriction, or delay
of the pupil's driving privilege
b) The parent or guardian:
i) Is obligated to compel the attendance of the pupil
at school.
ii) May be guilty of an infraction and subject to
prosecution, if they fail to meet this obligation.
iii) Has the right to meet with appropriate school
personnel to discuss solutions to the pupil's truancy
c) Alternative educational programs are available in the
district.
d) It is recommended that the parent or guardian accompany
the pupil to school and attend classes with the pupil for
SB 1317
Page 4
one day.
4)Defines a "habitual truant" as any pupil who has been reported
as a truant three or more times per school year (absent or
tardy at least five days), where an appropriate district
officer or employee had made a conscientious effort to hold at
least one conference with a parent and the pupil, after the
filing of either a truancy report to the attendance supervisor
or district superintendent.
5)Places any minor who has four or more truancies within one
school year under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and
may be judged a ward of the court.
6)Authorizes school district officials, a peace officer or a
probation officer to arrest or assume temporary custody of any
minor found away from his or her home and who is absent from
school without a valid excuse.
7)Establishes a School Attendance Review Board (SARB) at the
local and county level to create a safety net for students
with persistent attendance or behavior problems, keep students
in school, provide students with a meaningful educational
experience, and refer students and their parents or guardians
to court when necessary.
8)Authorizes a habitually truant pupil to be referred to a SARB
or to the probation department for services and authorizes a
SARB or probation officer to direct the pupil or pupil's
parents to make use of those services, if it is determined
that available community services can resolve the problem.
9)Authorizes a SARB to notify the district attorney or probation
officer, if it is determined that services cannot solve the
problem, or if the pupil and/or parent have failed to respond
to directives.
10) Establishes a truancy mediation program, and authorizes
the district attorney or probation officer to request that the
parents and truant pupil attend a meeting to discuss the
possible legal consequences of the child's truancy.
11) Allows schools to require any minor who is reported as a
truant to attend makeup classes during the weekend and
provides that truants are subject to the following:
SB 1317
Page 5
a) A written warning by a peace officer the first time a
truancy report is required.
b) Assignment to an after school or weekend study program
upon the second truancy report.
c) Classification as a habitual truant and referral to a
SARB or a truancy mediation program upon the third truancy
report.
d) Placement within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,
which may adjudge the pupil to be a ward of the court upon
the fourth truancy report.
12)Specifies that any parent, guardian, or other person having
control or charge of any pupil who fails to meet compulsory
education requirements is guilty of an infraction, and:
a) Authorizes penalties for this infraction as follows:
i) A fine of not more than $100 upon a first
conviction.
ii) A fine of not more than $250 upon a second
conviction.
iii) A fine of not more than $500 upon a third or
subsequent conviction, if the person has willfully
refused to comply; also authorizes the court to order the
person to be placed in a parent education and counseling
program.
b) Authorizes a judgment against a defendant who fails to
pay the fine on the date that it is due or fails to attend
a program on a prescribed date, requires the defendant to
appear in court on that date, and authorizes punishment of
willful violations as contempt.
c) Authorizes the court to order the defendant, upon the
first conviction, to immediately enroll or reenroll the
pupil in the appropriate school or educational program and
provide proof of enrollment to the court.
13)Requires a parent or legal guardian of any person under the
age of 18 years to exercise reasonable care, supervision,
protection, and control over their minor child, and specifies
that any person who commits any act or omits the performance
SB 1317
Page 6
of any duty, such that any person under the age of 18 years to
do or to perform any act that would cause that child to become
or to remain within the jurisdiction of the court, is guilty
of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, or by imprisonment
in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both.
14)Creates a diversion program for parents or guardians who are
being prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a
minor.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill will create:
1)"Possibly significant, non-reimbursable local costs" as a
result of the new misdemeanor, since the "costs of prosecution
and county jail incarceration are incurred by local
jurisdictions, and not reimbursed by the state."
2)"Potentially significant costs" in private, local or federal
funds, if an optional DEJ is established; since the "bill
specifies that any optional DEJ program provided for in this
bill will be funded only by non-state funds; this bill
presents no cost pressure to state funds."
3)"Potentially significant incarceration savings" in the costs
of incarceration, if an optional DEJ is established.
4)"Possibly significant increased revenue [in the form of
ADA-based apportionments] to schools, "to the extent that this
new law and/or program results in more children attending
school."
COMMENTS : Research clearly links, in the aggregate though not
necessarily in every individual pupil, both attendance and
achievement, and lack of attendance and the probability of
dropping out of school. So any policy change that leads to more
information about pupil attendance being made available to
parents or that addresses any challenges that a family faces
with respect to pupil attendance is good policy in terms of
leading to increases in pupil attendance and achievement, and
decreases in the number of drop outs. It is not completely
clear, however, whether this bill is necessary in order to
generate those benefits, since much of what this bill provides
for can be accomplished or is required under current law.
SB 1317
Page 7
According to the author, "Ensuring our children get a good
elementary school education is perhaps one of the most important
contributions we can make to their future success, health, and
security. During elementary school, children learn the building
blocks for everything that follows. They build crucial academic
and life skills including reading, writing, math, science,
socialization, and cooperative skills." The author goes on to
say that "neither the Education Code nor the Penal Code
effectively addresses the most serious problem that needs the
most immediate attention: chronic elementary school truancy."
This bill creates a new misdemeanor and specifies that a parent
of guardian of any student in grades K through 8 who is truant
for 10% or more of the schooldays in one school year (chronic
truant) is guilty of that crime and may be punished by a fine up
to $2,000, or by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one
year, or by both. The bill also authorizes the court to divert
defendants, who agree to specified conditions, into a DEJ
program, where the defendant enters a plea of guilty that is
held in abeyance pending their participation in the DEJ. The
DEJ would require the defendant's participation in support,
services and treatment that may address, depending on the
circumstances of the defendant, some of the challenges that
create or exacerbate the truancy issues that led to the
prosecution. For a defendant diverted to a DEJ program, the
court would hold judgment until either 1) the defendant complies
with the terms of the DEJ and the prosecuting attorney makes a
motion to dismiss the charges - whereupon the court could
dismiss the charges, or ii) the defendant fails to comply with
the terms of the DEJ, which may result in the prosecuting
attorney or the court making a motion for entry of judgment,
whereupon the court could render a finding of guilty, enter
judgment, and schedule a sentencing hearing.
According to author, "Truancy is often a result of multiple
underlying issues, and simply punishing parents for the truancy
of their children does not ensure that their children will
attend school regularly. In order to achieve this outcome, the
proposed legislation adopts a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ)
program approach that courts and prosecutors can employ to
address underlying causes and compel parents to get their kids
in school." According to author's staff, the intent of this
bill is to compel parents of chronically truant elementary and
middle school pupils to participate in the DEJ program, and thus
SB 1317
Page 8
address the challenges that may be preventing those parents from
ensuring that the pupil is attending school. It should be
noted, however, that the instrument that provides this
compulsion is a proposed new misdemeanor that will allow for
more uniform prosecution of parents of those pupils across
jurisdictions in the state and that will make conviction, to the
extent that a judgment is entered, easier as compared to
prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of a minor under
current law.
Three fundamental questions about the proposed approach to
reducing chronic truancy among pupils in the elementary and
middle grades, may be asked:
1)Is it reasonable to expect that the establishment of a new
misdemeanor and the associated DEJ program will lead to a
reduction in truancy rates among the targeted chronic truants?
The answer to this question comes in two parts. It is
uncertain whether (dis)incentive effects, with respect to
parents ensuring that their children attend school, do or do
not exist as a result of the creation of a new misdemeanor,
the potential for further criminalizing an educational issue,
and the increased ease of obtaining a conviction by
prosecuting under the new crime rather than under statute
preventing contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On the
other hand, the diversion of parents of chronic truants into a
program that has the possibility of addressing challenges that
some families are facing and that make it difficult for the
truant to improve their school attendance is attractive from
the perspective of generating potential educational benefits.
2)Could the benefits of the bill be realized under current law?
It is clear that the answer to this question is yes, although
there may an argument as to whether this proposal creates the
opportunity for even greater pupil attendance gains than could
be realized with the same effort being applied under current
law. An example of what could be done under current law is
shown by an article published in the San Francisco Chronicle
October 14, 2009, and written by the San Francisco District
Attorney, the sponsor of this bill; the District Attorney
wrote about accomplishments in San Francisco under current
law:
SB 1317
Page 9
"Every fall I send out letters to parents of all SFUSD
students informing them that truancy is against the
law. During the school year, prosecutors from my
office hold mediations with parents and truant
students to reinforce this message and urge them to
get help to improve their children's attendance. In
most cases, attendance improves.
When it does not, my office prosecutes parents in a
specialized truancy court we created that combines
close court monitoring with tailored family services.
To date, I have prosecuted 20 parents of young
children for truancy. The penalty for truancy charged
as a misdemeanor is a fine of up to $2,500 or up to a
year of jail. Our groundbreaking strategy has worked.
After Michael's [a student who missed 80 days of
kindergarten in the prior year] parents did not
respond to repeated pleas from the school district to
get him in class, my investigators served his parents
with criminal complaints. His parents appeared in
court and agreed to work to get needed services and
get Michael back in school. Michael missed only three
days the following school year. He got extra attention
from teachers to get on track and one parent has even
become a school volunteer.
The majority of parents who have been brought to
truancy court have dramatically improved their
children's attendance. In the last year alone, truancy
among elementary school students declined on average
by 20 percent."
In addition, under current law, there are notification
requirements, SARB referrals, referrals to the district
attorney or probation department, truancy mediation
programs, educational support services, as well as the
possibility of criminal prosecution, designed to address
truancy problems with parents and pupils at all grade
levels.
3)Are the incremental gains in truancy reduction that may be
generated by this bill worth the costs or concerns associated
with the proposal?
This question can not be answered at this time, since the
SB 1317
Page 10
gains that may be brought about by the bill are unknown;
however, the concerns that have been made about this bill
include that the proposal:
a) Elevates an educational issue to the criminal justice
system.
b) Takes a punitive approach to addressing attendance
issues.
c) Assumes that parents are the problem and does not
examine whether different educational services or
instructional approaches might resolve a pupil's attendance
issues.
d) Will create increased contention between parents and the
schools, while this issue requires parents and the school
to work together.
e) Creates redundancies with existing institutions and
systems within education.
f) May result in inequities with respect to low income
families or parents and pupils with limited English
proficiency, in terms of a parent's:
i) Ability to engage with the justice system.
ii) Ability to overcome transportation, child care, work
scheduling problems so as to complete a DEJ program.
iii) Knowledge about and ability to seek alternative
educational placements either inside or outside the
school district of residence.
Committee amendments: The educational benefits of this bill
hinge primarily on participation in the DEJ program, the
possibility that such participation allows parents to deal with
issues that may be causing or exacerbating a child's school
attendance problems, and the further possibility that this leads
to improved attendance and, eventually, better educational
outcomes. Thus, from an educational perspective it is
participation in the DEJ program and the quality of that program
that are key in this proposal. To that end, if the Committee
chooses to pass this bill, Committee staff recommends the
following amendments:
1)Clarify that the service referrals for participants in the DEJ
program may be tailored to meet the needs of the defendant "as
appropriate to each case," and that those service referrals
"may include, but not be limited to" the services currently
listed in the bill.
SB 1317
Page 11
2)Include "Meeting with school psychologists, school counselors,
teachers, and school administrators" as a required component
of the DEJ program.
3)Add the requirement that any district attorney choosing to
charge a defendant with a violation of the proposed
misdemeanor is required to file, whether a defendant is found
to be eligible or ineligible for deferred entry of judgment,
with the court a declaration in writing or state for the
record the grounds upon which the determination of that
eligibility or ineligibility is based.
Staff also recommends that the Committee accept, as Committee
Amendments, amendments drafted by the author to fulfill a
commitment that the author made during the bill's hearing in the
Assembly Public Safety Committee. These amendments clarify the
prohibition against prosecuting a parent under both the proposed
new misdemeanor and existing statute related to contributing to
the delinquency of a minor.
In addition, the Committee may wish to consider whether current
law, which allows a district attorney to work with school
districts to reduce truancy in elementary schools, is sufficient
policy. The Committee may also wish to consider whether
prosecuting parents in a "specialized truancy court", as was the
case in San Francisco, may be an approach that better supports
families in dealing with the challenges that may lead to
truancy. It is unclear whether prosecutions under the
provisions of this bill would take place in a "specialized
truancy court" as opposed to Superior Court with no special
focus on truancy issues.
Related legislation: SB 1357 (Steinberg), pending in the
Assembly Appropriations Committee, requires the California
Department of Education to include pupil attendance data and
data on chronic absences in the Annual Report on Dropouts in
California and in the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement
Data System, and to provide related reports to local educational
agencies on demand. SB 1148 (Alquist), held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee in 2010, would have defined a chronic
truant to be a pupil having unexcused absences for 10 percent or
more of the days in one school year. SB 540 (Romero), died in
Senate Education in 2009, would have repealed or amended
statutory provisions that impose reimbursable state mandates on
school districts, including making the currently required
SB 1317
Page 12
parental notifications related to a pupil's truancy optional.
Previous legislation: AB 1446 (DeSaulnier), held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee in 2008, would have required school
districts, upon a pupil's initial classification as a truant, to
provide the required parental notification within 10 schooldays
of the pupil's last day of being absent or tardy from school
without a valid excuse. AB 1536 (Cardenas), vetoed in 2001,
would have established a truancy court pilot program within Los
Angeles County. SB 484 (Rainey), held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee in 2000, would have created a Truancy
Prevention Model Pilot Program in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, to be administered jointly by the County Offices of
Education on both counties. SB 1677 (Lee), held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee in 1998, was substantially similar to
SB 484.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California District Attorneys Association
California Probation, Parole, and Correctional Association
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
Chief Probation Officers of California
San Francisco District Attorney (Sponsor)
One individual
Opposition
American Civil Liberties Union (unless amended)
Asian Law Caucus (unless amended)
California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy
California Public Defenders Association
Community Rights "No to Pre-Prison" Campaign
Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.
The Learning Rights Law Center
The Los Angeles Chapter of the Dignity in Schools Campaign
Analysis Prepared by : Gerald Shelton / ED. / (916) 319-2087
SB 1317
Page 13