BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1880
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1880 (Lara) - As Amended: April 10, 2012
Policy Committee: Education
Vote:7-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill, beginning July 1, 2013, requires middle and high
school safety plans to include policies and procedures to
prevent and respond to teen dating abuse in grades 6-12. The
measure also establishes statutory definitions related to teen
dating abuse. Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the policies and procedures included in the school
safety plan to include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Definition of teen dating abuse and a description of
warning signs of this abuse.
b) Prohibition of teen dating abuse on school grounds or
any school sponsored activity.
c) Procedures for responding to warning signs and incidents
of teen dating abuse, including providing safety, health
and educational accommodations and enforcing any
civil/criminal protection orders for or against pupils.
d) Ensure schoolsite staff are prepared to prevent,
recognize, intervene, and respond appropriately to teen
dating abuse.
e) A protocol for monitoring and assessing teen dating
abuse incidents and responses.
f) Collaborate with organizations with expertise in teen
dating abuse prevention and response in implementing the
dating abuse policies and procedures, as specified.
g) Provide annual written notice to parents/guardians of
pupils on the teen dating abuse policies and procedures.
Requires schools to display the notice prominently in
school common areas, classrooms, health service offices and
school handbook.
AB 1880
Page 2
2)Requires a schoolsite council (who is responsible for writing
the school safety plan) consult with local, state, or national
organizations with expertise in dating abuse prevention when
developing the policy/procedures required in the safety plan
pursuant to this measure.
3)Defines teen dating abuse as physical, sexual, verbal,
emotional, or technological conduct by a person to harm,
threaten, intimidate, or control a dating partner, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
GF/98 state reimbursable mandated costs, likely between $2
million and $4 million, to local education agencies (LEAs) to
meet the requirements of this bill, including developing
policies/procedures regarding teen dating abuse for the school
safety plan; requiring schoolsite councils to consult with
outside organizations; providing professional development to
school staff to prepare them for warning signs of this abuse;
providing annual written notification to parents/guardians; and
posting the specified information at schoolsites. Of these
costs,
$1 million to $2 million will likely be ongoing to meet the
requirements of this statute.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . According to the Center for Disease Control's (CDC)
Fact Sheet on Teen Dating Violence (2012), "Dating violence is
a serious problem in the United States. Many teens do not
report it because they are afraid to tell friends and family.
Among adult victims of rape, physical violence, and/or
stalking by an intimate partner, 22.4% of women and 15.0% of
men first experienced some form of partner violence between 11
and 17 years of age. About 10% of students nationwide report
being physically hurt by a boyfriend or girlfriend in the past
12 months."
The CDC also states: "Dating violence can have a negative
effect on health throughout life. Teens who are victims are
more likely to be depressed and do poorly in school. They may
engage in unhealthy behaviors, like using drugs and alcohol,
and are more likely to have eating disorders. Some teens even
AB 1880
Page 3
think about or attempt suicide. Teens who are victims in high
school are at higher risk for victimization during college."
The author states: "A substantial number of �teen dating
abuse] incidents occur on campus, threatening the safety of
students and staff, distracting students from learning, and
compromising the school climate. Yet, the distinctive aspects
of dating abuse make it one of the most overlooked forms of
violence. While California has taken steps to strengthen
school responses to peer-to-peer bullying, the Education Code
has a serious gap when it comes to dating abuse: it does not
define dating abuse, require schools to prohibit it, or ensure
that schools have dating abuse policies in place."
2)Existing law specifies that each school district and county
office of education (COE) is responsible for the overall
development of all comprehensive school safety plans. It also
delineates the contents of these plans, including procedures
for dealing with school discipline discrimination and
harassment. Statute also encourages all plans, to the extent
resources are available, to include policies and procedures
aimed at preventing bullying.
Current law also requires schoolsite councils to develop a
comprehensive school safety plan, as specified. The
schoolsite council may delegate this responsibility to a
school safety planning committee comprised of the principal, a
teacher, a parent, a classified employee, and other members if
desired.
3)Should the schoolsite council be required to consult with
organizations prior to developing the teen dating abuse policy
for the school safety plan ? Current law requires the
schoolsite council, in developing the school safety plan, to
consult with a representative from a law enforcement agency in
the development of the plan. Statute, however, does not
require the schoolsite council to consult with disaster
preparedness agencies, organizations that work to prevent
discrimination/harassment, or other organizations relevant to
the required components of the safety plan. The committee may
wish to consider if it is necessary to establish a mandated
reimbursable requirement for schoolsite councils to consult
with teen dating abuse organizations in the development of the
safety plan.
AB 1880
Page 4
4)Unpaid K-12 mandates . According to the Legislative Analyst's
Office, the state owes approximately $3.4 billion in K-12
mandate costs for prior years. Prior to the 2010 Budget Act,
the state deferred mandate payments for several years with the
promise of making the payments to school districts in future
years. As a result, districts did not received payment for
annual services they were required to conduct, including the
school safety plan mandate. The school safety plan mandate
totals approximately $5 million GF/98 annually.
SB 90 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review), Chapter 7,
Statutes of 2011 allocated $80 million GF/98 to school
districts for annual K-12 mandate costs; the state, however,
still owes school districts for the prior year costs.
5)Governor's proposal to establish K-12 mandate block grant .
The January 2012-13 proposed budget eliminates approximately
25 (50%) of the 50 K-12 mandates and establishes a K-12
optional mandate block grant as a mechanism for LEAs and
charter schools to receive state reimbursement for the
remaining 25 mandates, including the comprehensive school
safety plan mandate. The majority of the 25 mandates that are
proposed to be eliminated are already suspended in the current
year pursuant to 2011 Budget Act.
The 2012-13 proposed budget provides $178 million for the new
optional, mandate block grant, which funds the remaining 25
mandates. This funding equates to approximately $30 per pupil
for school districts, $89 per pupil for COEs, and $26 per
pupil for charter schools. LEAs and charter schools can
either choose to participate or submit mandate claims directly
to the Commission on State Mandates, which is the current
process for reimbursement. If an LEA or a charter school
receives the block grant funding, they are required to meet
all activities associated with the 25 mandates funded in the
block grant.
6)Related legislation . AB 1857 (Fong), pending in this
committee, authorizes school districts to provide education
programs to promote healthy relationships and prevent teen
dating abuse to pupils in grades 7-12, as specified.
Analysis Prepared by : Kimberly Rodriguez / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 1880
Page 5