IN RE M.M.

Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice

Cal.July 21, 2010

Supre 2Cov. EDMUNDG. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General STEVE OETTING . Supervising Deputy Attorney General MARISSA BEJARANO Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 234544 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2529 Fax: (619) 645-2271 E-mail: Marissa.Bejarano@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent In the Supreme Court of the State of Caltfarnta In re: MARTIN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Vv. MARTIN M., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant. S177704 Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, Case No. Plaintiff and Respondent. E945714; San Bernardino Superior Court No. J220179 RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE HONORABLE RONALD M. GEORGE, CHIEF JUSTICE, AND TO THE HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Respondentrespectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Evidence Codesections 452 and 459 and California Rules of Court, rules 8.252(a) and 8.520(g), to take judicial notice of the following documents: Exhibit1: Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Safe Schools Task Force Final Report (Sune 2000) Exhibit 2: Assem. Bill No. 1785, Stats. 2000 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) ch. 995, as introduced; Exhibit3: Nieto, Security and Crime Prevention Strategies in California Public Schools (Oct. 1999); Exhibit 4: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Code section 628.1: Sen. Bill No. 822, Stats. 1995 (1995-1996 Reg.Sess.), as introduced; Exhibit 5: Legislative History Pertaining to California Education Code section 38000: Sen. Floor Analyses, Sen. Rules Comm., Sen. Bill No. 1626, Stats. 1998 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.), as amended Jun. 18, 1998; Exhibit 6: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Code section 148: Assem. Comm. on Crim. Law & Pub. Saf., Assem. Bill No. 158, Stats. 1983 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.), Letters from Winston Parkman to Assemblyman Curtis Tucker dated August 4, 1982 and January 17, 1983 and Bill Analysis Cover and Worksheet; Exhibit 7: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Codesection 148: Assem. Comm.on Pub. Saf., Assem. Bill No. 462, Stats. 1987 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.), 3d Reading andBill Analysis Worksheet, Exhibit8: California Department of Education, Letter from Superintendent Jack O’Connell to All County and District Superintendents, School Administrators and Chief Business Officers, Regarding the Governor’s Budget for 2010-2011 (Mar. 4, 2011); Exhibit 9: San Bernardino City Unified Schools District, Crime Statistics; and Exhibit 10: Campus Safety Magazine (Dec. 2009), DOJ Releases Updated K-12 School CrimeStats Attached exhibits 1-2 and 4-8, are the proper subject ofjudicial notice under Evidence Code section 452. Subdivision (c) of that provision providesthat judicial notice may be taken of “Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.” Pursuantto that authority, it is appropriate to take judicial notice of Exhibit 1 becauseit is an official publication of the California Attorney General’s Office and the State Superintendant of Public Administration. (See People vy. Crusilla (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 141, 147 [court took judicial notice of an official publication of the California Attorney General’s Office].) Similarly, Exhibits 2 and 4-7 are proper matters for judicial notice because they contain the legislative history of Penal Code sections 148, 628, and 628.1, and California Education Codesection 38000. (See People v. Snyder (2000) 22 Cal.4th 304, 309 [judicial notice taken of legislative history pertaining to Government Codesection 83116.5, including a memorandum sent by sponsorof legislation to senate committee]; Huffv. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 742 [court took judicial notice of legislative history pertaining to Vehicle Code section 38503, including statement prepared by the Assembly’s Committee on Transportation]; White v. Ultramar, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 563, 572, fn. 3 [court took judicial notice of committee reports and individual legislators’ (including co-authors’) comments from the Assembly and Senate committee bill files].) As to Exhibit 8, the letter from California Department of Education Superintendent Jack O’Connell to all county and district superintendents, school administrators, and chief business officers, regarding the Governor’s Budget, is also a proper matter for judicial notice. The letter is an official act by the executive department. (See Ca. Advocatesfor Nursing Home Reform v. Bonta (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 498, 515 fn. 8 [all county letter sent by Department of Health Service to county welfare directors and other local officials to provide information on estate recovery program proper matter for judicial notice under Evidence Codesection 452].) Finally, the remaining exhibits 3, 9, and 10, are proper matters for judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), because the documents constitute “(flacts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” Exhibit 3 was cited to support the proposition that “During the 1990s, despite the development of the school/law enforcementpartnership and developmentof school safety plans, it was evident that public schools continued to be victimized by crimes against persons and property.” (See Opening Brief on the Merits at p. 5.) That proposition is a proper matter for judicial notice because courts are permitted to take judicial notice of economic andsocial conditions, as common knowledge and verifiable facts under Evidence Code section 452. (See Gillum v. Johnson (1936) 7 Cal.2d 744, 760 [Supreme Court judicially knows“that unemploymentfor several years has presented serious andat times very acute problemsfor state and national governments”].) Finally, Exhibits 9 and 10 are proper matters to be judicially noticed because they contain statistical data/facts that are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. And,it has been held that such statistical data is a proper matterfor judicial notice. (See Powell v. Superior Court (1991) 232 Cal. App.3d 785, 795 fn. 7 [court took judicial notice ofstatistical data provided by the Jury Services Division of Los Angeles Superior Court].) CONCLUSION Forthe reasonsstated above, respondentrespectfully requests that this Court take judicial notice of the documents attached in Exhibits 1 through 10. Dated: July 19, 2010 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of Califorma DANER. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General SelOETTING Stipe pAttorney General UWALZjXjMMW SSAWe Attorneys for Plaintiffand Respondent DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: In re Martin M., a minor No.: §177704 I declare: I am employedin the Office of the Attorney General, whichis the office of a memberofthe California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the businesspractice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondenceplacedin the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On July 20, 2010, I served the attached respondent’s motion for judicial notice by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 110 West A Street, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 85266, San Diego, CA 92186-5266, addressed as follows: Lauren E. Eskenazi Attorney at Law 11693 San Vicente Boulevard Suite # 510 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Fourth Appellate District Division Two Court of Appeal of the State of California 3389 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501 { declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the State of California the foregoingis true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2010, at sanDiego, California. a fo \ i 4 fos i 7 OE j Kimberly Wickenhagen Mu{yeLhiMfe)\i/UlKechboS Declarant /\ Signature | $D2010700260 J 70311860.doc Ne i V EDMUNDG. BROWN JR. Attorney General of California GARY W. SCHONS Senior Assistant Attorney General STEVE OETTING Supervising Deputy Attorney General MARISSA BEJARANO Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 234544 110 West A Street, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2529 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: Marissa.Bejarano@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent Jn the Supreme Court of the State of Caltfornia In re: MARTIN M., a Person Coming Underthe Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. MARTIN M., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant. Case No. S177704 Fourth Appellate District Two, Case No. E045714 San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. J220179 [PROPOSED|JORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Pursuant to Evidence Codesections 452 and 459 and California Rules of Court, rules 8.252(a) and 8.520(g), this Court will take judicial notice of the following documents: Exhibit 1: Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Safe Schools Task Force Final Report (June 2000); Exhibit 2: Assem. Bill No. 1785, Stats. 2000 (1999-2000 Reg. Sess.) ch. 995, as introduced; Exhibit 3: Nieto, Security and Crime Prevention Strategies in California Public Schools (Oct. 1999); Exhibit4: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Code section 628.1: Sen. Bill No. 822, Stats. 1995 (1995-1996 Reg.Sess.), as introduced; Exhibit5: Legislative History Pertaining to California Education Code section 38000: Sen. Floor Analyses, Sen. Rules Comm., Sen. Bill No. 1626, Stats. 1998 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.), as amended Jun. 18, 1998; Exhibit 6: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Code section 148: Assem. Comm. on Crim. Law & Pub. Saf., Assem. Bill No. 158, Stats. 1983 (1983-1984 Reg. Sess.), Letters from Winston Parkman to Assemblyman Curtis Tucker dated August 4, 1982 and January 17, 1983 and Bill Analysis Cover and Worksheet; Exhibit7: Legislative History Pertaining to California Penal Code section 148: Assem. Comm. on Pub. Saf., Assem. Bill No. 462, Stats. 1987 (1987-1988 Reg. Sess.), 3d Reading and Bill Analysis Worksheet; Exhibit 8: California Department of Education, Letter from Superintendent Jack O’Connell to All County and District Superintendents, School Administrators and Chief Business Officers, Regarding the Governor’s Budgetfor 2010-2011 (Mar. 4, 2011); Exhibit 9: San Bernardino City Unified Schools District, CrimeStatistics; and Exhibit 10: Campus Safety Magazine (Dec. 2009), DOJ Releases Updated K-12 School CrimeStats IT IS SO ORDERED: DATED: PJ. $D2010700260 70311217.doc DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL Case Name: Jn re Martin M., a minor No.: 8177704 I declare: I am employedin the Office of the Attorney General, whichis the office of a memberofthe California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondenceplacedin the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. On July 20, 2010, I served the attached order granting request for judicial notice by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 110 West A Street, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 85266, San Diego, CA 92186-5266, addressed as follows: Lauren E. Eskenazi Attorney at Law 11693 San Vicente Boulevard Suite # 510 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Fourth Appellate District Division Two Court of Appeal of the State of California 3389 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoingis true ' and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 20, 2010, at San Diego, California. \ he *s, i f i 4i a fe. irPoonfe : - +, . Bor ye LAE Vib hie Aha Kimberly Wickenhagen Kb WW WhyVvLMAAUC. Declarant \ Signature Ss i i ; $D2010700260 ed 70311860.doc EXHIBIT 1 Attorney General and State Superintendentof Public Instruction SAFE ScHooLs Task FORCE FINAL REPORT Eee June 2000 Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction SAFE SCHOOLS TASK ForcE Sheriff Don Horsley, Co-Chair San Mateo County Sandra McBrayer, Co-Chair The Children’s Initiative, San Diego Edward J. Chavez, Chief Stockton Police Department Carl Cohn, Superintendent Long Beach Unified Schoo! District John Wayne Dawkins, Student Yolo High School, West Sacramento Guy Emanuele, Superintendent (ret.} Fremont Brenda English, Deputy District Attorney Los Angeles County Steven Goldsmith, Director Centinela Valley Juvenile Diversion Project’ Los Angeles Nancy Goodrich,Assistant Chief San Diego Police Department Jeff Horton, President California School Board Association Los Angeles Patricia Huerta, Commissioner California State PTA EYE Counseling and Crisis Services Aron Kwong,Student Kennedy High School, Sacramento Wesley Mitchell, Chief of Police Services Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict Linda Murray, Superintendent San Jose Unified School District Henry Perea, City Counciiman Fresno Laura Reed, Principal Mark Hopkins Elementary Schoot Sacramento Joseph A, Santoro, Chief Monrovia Police Department Michael Schumacher, Director Health Care Agency, Santa Ana Steven H. Staveley, Director Division of Law Enforcement California Departmentof Justice Stephen Thom, Mediator Community Relations Services US. Department of Justice, Los Angeles Edward Velasquez, Assistant Montebello Unified SchoolDistrict Annie Webb, Principal Locke High School, Los Angeles Gail Whang, Program Manager Oaktand Unified SchoojDistrict Dear Ms. Eastin and Mr. Lockyer: Onbehalf of your Safe Schools Task Force, we hereby submit to you our recommendationsand strategies for improving school safety in California. The problems of school crime and violence affect us all. Recent tragedies on school campuses in Mount Morris Township, Michigan; Littleton, Colorado; and Conyers, Georgia raise new levels of interest and debate about addressing issues of school safety. School and law enforcementofficials are increasingly concemed with preventing lethal youth violence. Fortunately, despite these horrific events, youth violence is down in California, as it is across the nation. Our schools are amongthe safest places for our children. Yet, any crime on school campusis one too many. Our children’s future and that of our state depend upon making every school campusa safe learning environment. We must worktirelessly to keep crime going down and to recognize early patterns of behavior — suchastruancy, vandalism and substance abuse — that may result in youth tuming to more serious crime. Research shows that when we intervene early, we can prevent youth from turning to a life of crime and violence. You askedus to identify strategies and programs for improving schoolsafety. At your direction, we also explored ways to develop partnerships between schools and law enforcement to keep schools safe and free from violence. The 23-memberTask Force, representing education, law enforcement, com- munity groups and youth, shared their views and knowledge oncritical school safety issues. In-depth discussion regarding school crime and violence issues helped the Task Force formulate a report that identifies eight key policy recommendation areas and includes 46 strategies to strengthen school safety in California. On behalf of the Safe Schools Task Force, we thank you for your outstand- ing leadership and the opportunity to have participated in this important process. Wealso thank the staff of the California Department of Education’s Safe Schools and Violence Prevention Office and the Attorney General’s Crime and Violence Prevention Center for their support of our efforts. Respectfully submitted, The Attorney General and State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Safe Schools Task Force. Lh, teh‘be Powrdrn, © 10spen oes Don“Worsley Sandra McBrayer Co-Chair Co-Chair “Partnering for Safe Schools” TABLE OF CoNTENTS Talage to) 0[c1t (0) a eee 1 Safe Schools Task Force Recommendations..........0..0. ceeSs ccvevivetvateeneesees 5 Safe Schools Task Force Members......;eeerrr rere 17 State Staff to the Safe Schools Task Force 2...ccc reece eet ee tte t nee n een e es 18 Special Representatives to the Safe Schools Task Force wo...cece 18 Appendix A Synopsis, Current EffOrtscitrinetires 19 Appendix B Overview: What California is Doing to Keep Schools Safe... 21 Appendix C History of School/Law EnforcementPartnership ...............Scivevvecerneveeeeres 23 Appendix D Safe Schools Grant Programs 20.0.0... ccc cee eect tebe etn t ttn eee nee nei ed 24 ACKNOWIEUOMENS00.OLEEL COL EEE DE Eset en banner 25 INTRODUCTION. Scope of the Problem Recent tragedies on school campuses in Mount Morris Township, Michigan: Littleton, Colorado; and Conyers, Georgia raise new levels of interest and debate about addressing issues of school safety. School and law enforcementofficials are increasingly concerned with prevent: ing lethal youth violence. In 1998-99, there were 26 school-associated violent deaths nation- wide. Tragically, 15 of the 26 were at Columbine High on April 20, 1999. A focus onthese few, horrific incidents creates a perception that schools are not safe and can Cause anxiety among students and teachers that Is detrimental to the education process. The truth is that the chance of a homicide in a California schoolis less than one in a million (California Safe Schools Assessment, 1998-99}, similar to the probability nationwide. More than 5.8 million students attend over 8,330 public schools in California. California children today are safer in school, on average, than they are in a car, on the street or, sadly, even at home. Our schools are among the safest places for our children. Nevertheless, there is cause for concern. Three of the deaths which took place nationwide last year were al California schools: a school parking lot shooting; a student found beaten to death in a school shed; and a head injury death over the use of a basketball court at a middle school (National School Safety Center, School Associated Violent Deaths, 1998-1999), School Campuses for the:199 In the 1998-1999 school year, the rate for drug and alcohol offenses rose 17 percent. The number of knives seized on campus increased to 6,168. And while downslightly from the previous year, the number of guns confiscated on campuslast year was 637. As Chart 1 demonstrates, incidents of Property Crimes continue to decline from previous years, while incidents in other categories, such as Crimes Against Persons and Drug and Alcohol Offenses, increased. In our public oJ high schools, drug and alcohol offenses have reached their highest reported level.! N u m b e r o f tn ci de nt s p e r 1 , 0 0 0 S t u d e n t s En ro tl ed ‘This nay be due, in part, to improved reporting and the inclusion of possession of marjuana paraohernalia as a reportable incident effective July 1, 1998. Source: California Safe:‘Schools Assessment, 1998-29 ; California Department of Education et s 1995-96 1996-97 (23 1997-98 [5] 1998-99 Our children’s future, and that of our state, depend upon making every school campusa Safe learning environment. Troubled children often develop a pattern that leads through escalating behavior problems to eventual violence. Ve must worktirelessly to recognize early patterns of behavior — such as truancy, vandalism and substance abuse — and implement strategies to prevent youth from turning to more serious crime. If caught early enough, atrisk youth can escape life of crime and violence. The Task Force recognized that short term, school safety strategies range from effective crisis response managementto strong efforts to prevent behavior problems from escalating to violence. Long term, we must acknowledge the underlying causes of youth violence and work to address the needs of at-risk children before they commit crimes. While crisis intervention is critical, so is early intervention with atrisk children. The Task Force recognizes that probably the most important factor in steering young people awayfrom crime is a nurturing and positive home environment. Early childhood experiences arecritical. Strong relationships between children and their parents, teachers, other adult role models and mentors, and strang ties to community resources for assistance when needed, are critical to success. “There needs to be a full spectrum of response,” stated Task Force member atricia Huerta, Community Concerns Commissioner, California State A. “There should be more community contro! over the design and élivery of these programs....Youth are only as healthy as their family and community. ” Finally, schools cannot accomplish this mission in isolation. Success depends on everyone working together — students, parents, school staff, law enforcement, Community service organizations, social ser- vice agencies, businesses, local government, faith community leaders andall other community members. Success requires partnerships, cooperation, strong will and commitment. ‘Mission of the Safe Schools Task Force In Februapy.<| 999, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin. and:Attorney General Bill Lockyer formed the Safe Schools Task Force to further combat crime in our schools and create a more power- ful partnership between schools and law enforcement to keep schools safe and free from violence. The 23-member Task Force — representing education, law enforcement, community groups and youth — were asked to identify model strategies and programsfor improving school safely, determine current needs and make recommendationsto strengthen partnerships between schools and law enforcementto enhance school safely strategies. Purpose of Safe Schools Task Force Report The purpose of this report is to provide the Attorney General and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction with recommendations on how to strengthen the partnership between schools and. law enforce- ment to assure safe schools. These recommendations will serve as a guide to advocate for and implement programs and approachesthat will continue to improve the safety of school campuses. The report provides a framework from which these two constitutional officers can work together to address schoo! safety issues. It contains both short- and long-term goals to assure that California's schools remain safe and secure learning environments. Partnership between Law Enforcement and Schools Members of law enforcementare often the first point of contact between troubled youth and the community. Therefore, law enforce- ment officials have a unique opportunity to take a jeadership rote in forging relationships 1998-99 School Yea between parents, educators, community 124 organizations and others to identifyatrisk . 3 5] Property Crimes youth and prevent them from committing crimes & 104 [1 Crimes Against Persons or graduating to more serious offenses. As 2 [a] Drug/Alcoho!Offenses : 2 3] Other Crimes demonstrated in Chart 2, the use of alcohol a and drugs, often seen as “gateway offenses,” & él — was the most commontype of offense 8 reported at the high school Jevel. & 4H a California is entering its third decade of 3 24 leadership in creating a successful partnership z between education and law enforcementto On r fF 99 — D w o m a o n n n P w W N - H W W W N H N O N N N N N N N Y N N P r e e e e e —3— AB 1785 628. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this section to ensure that schools, school districts, local government, and the Legislature have sufficient data and information about the type and frequency of crime, including hate motivated incidents and hate crimes, occurring on school campuses to permit development of effective programs and techniques to combat crime on school campuses. SEC. 3. Section 628.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.1. (a) By June 30, 1995, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice and a representative selection of school districts and county offices of education which currently compile school cmme statistics, shall develop a standard school crime reporting form for use by all school districts and county offices of education throughout the state. No individual shall be identified by name or in any other manner on this reporting form. The form shall define what constitutes the criminal activity required to be reported and shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: €e} (1) Description of the crime or incident, including hate motivated incidents or hate crimes. (e) (2) Victim characteristics. (3) Suspect characteristics, 1f known. (b) For purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply: (1) “Hate motivated incident” means an act or attempted act which constitutes an expression of hostility against a person or property or institution because of the victims real or perceived race, religion, disability, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. This may include using bigoted insults, taunts, or slurs, distributing or posting hate group literature or posters, defacing, removing, or destroying posted materials or 99 AB 1785 —4— o O C O I D N B W N W N announcements, posting or circulating demeaning jokes or leaflets. (2) “Hate crime” means an act or attempted act against the person or property of another individual or institution which in any way manifest evidence of hostility toward the victim because of his or her actual or perceived race, religion, disability, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening telephone calls, hate mail, physical assault, vandalism, cross burning, destruction of religious symbols, orfire bombings. SEC. 4. Section 628.2 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.2. (a) On forms prepared and supplied by the State Department of Education, each principal of a school in a school district and each principal or director of a school, program, or camp under the jurisdiction of the county superintendent of schools shall forward a completed report of crimes committed, including hate motivated incidents and hate crimes as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 628.1, on school or camp grounds at the end of each reporting period to the district superintendent or county superintendent of schools, as the case may be. (b) The district superintendent, or, as appropriate, the county superintendent of schools, shall compile the school data and submit the aggregated data to the State Department of Education not later than February | for the reporting period of July 1 through December 31, and not later than August | for the reporting period of January 1 through June 30. (c) The superintendent of any school district that maintains a police department pursuant to Section 39670 of the Education Code may direct the chief of police or other administrator of that department to prepare the completed report of crimes for one or more schools in the district, to compile the school data for the district, and to submit the aggregated data to the State Department of Education in accordance with this section. If the chief of police or other designated administrator completes the 99 m s D o e n n a n f b p W N H H W W W N N N N N N N N N N S P E R E S P e e e B S V A S G R G S A Z S S B A D A G A E G B N H E S H O M A D N A Y W N H —5— AB 1785 report of crimes, the chief of police or other designated administrator shall provide information to each school principal about the school crime reporting program, the crime descriptions, including hate motivated incidents and hate crimes as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 628.1, included in the reporting program, the reporting guidelines, and the required documentation identified by the State Department of Education for each crimedescription. (d) The State Department of Education shall distribute, upon request, to each school district governing board, each office of the county superintendent of schools, each county probation department, the Attorney General, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, county human relations commissions, civil rights organizations, and private organizations, a summary of the statewide aggregated data. The department also shall distribute, upon request, to each office of the county superintendent of schools, each county sheriff, and each county probation department, a summary of that county’s school district reports and county reports. This information shall be supplied not later than March 1 of each year for the previous school year. The department shall also submit to the Legislature a summary of the statewide aggregated data not later than March 1 of each year for the previous school year. In addition, commencing with the second annual report, the department shall identify and analyze trends in school crime by comparing the numbers and rates of crimes and the resulting economic losses for each year against those of previous years. (e) All school district, county, and statewide reports prepared under this chapter shall be deemed public documents and shall be made available to the public at a -price not to exceed the actual cost of duplication and distribution. SEC. 5. Section 628.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.5. The Legislature hereby recognizes that all pupils enrolled in California public schools have the 99 AB 1785 — 6— — C o n o r a d ” n h W N W W O G W b o b O b O D O bD O bB O b D D P L D H S i R P R e e e N O H D W O W A I N A N A A R P W N H Y H K H D O W A T N A A R W N P inalienable right to attend classes on campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. The Legislature also recognizes the importance of accurate school crime data, including data on hate motivated incidents and hate crimes as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 628.1, in developing and implementing school safety strategies and programs. The State Department of Education, in consultation with school districts and county offices of education, shall identify guidelines for reporting and documentation for validating the incidents of- each crime description contained on the standard school: crime reporting forms prepared pursuant to Sections 628.1 and 628.2. Reporting guidelines and documentation for validation criteria. shall be established for each crime description, including, but not limited to, all of the following: battery, assault with a deadly weapon, graffiti, homicide, sex offenses, robbery, extortion, drug and alcohol offenses, possession of weapons, destructive devices, arson, burglary, theft,—and vandalism, and hate motivated incidents and hate crimes as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 628.1. SEC. 6. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. 99 EXHIBIT 3 Security and Crime Prevention Strategies in California Public Schools By Marcus Nieto Prepared at the Request of Senator Dede Alpert, Chair, Senate Education Committee Senator Teresa Hughes, Chair, Senate Select Committee on School Safety OCTOBER 1999 CRB-99-012 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....ccccscsecsscscssstssscesssssesseeseseeterecccesesessessseserecesessstecenesseenestesseeaseaneaave 1 VIOLENCE IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS esssssssssssssssssessssessscssssssessssssssssstscsssessesesssassssecesseseeesees 3 "PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT THE CAUSES OF YOUTH VIOLENCEu......cccccccsssssescecsecsseetcsstseestvesscsevass 5 CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO SCHOOL SAFETY.icccesesccsseecesssseeseeeeeereecsstecesseessesausaeeneeeseses 7 SELECTED SCHOOL DRUG AND CRIME PREVENTION FUNDING PROGRAMS J... ccccccccccsssseeeeeeeennes 8 Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994 (Title IV) ooocccccccccccccteeceseeeseees 9 School Policing and Partnership Act of 1998 (Intervention-base) ....ccccccccccceccccceceseseceeteee 10 Conflict Resolution and Youth Mediation Grants .....0.cccccccccccccccceetecce cess scctccenstevssesesunsevecenns 10 High-Risk Youth Education and Public Safety.....ccccccccccccccsetteseete tebe ceteseecevcensensetesersens Il The 21st Century Community Learning Center Program ...c.cccccccccccccccccteeccccccessctssceesseessees Il Gang Risk Intervention Program (GRIP) .....cccccccccceceetensneeee tee tconeeae ces eeeesesssssecasensesseesens Il Gang Crime and Violence Prevention Partnership PrOQVAM ......cccccccccccccccceccscssesecsceneessesees il After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Programn.....ccccccccccccccccseceees il BRIEF HISTORY OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTSIN CALIFORNIA ....ccsssssccsssesessssscesscsssesecesscssesscsseseeesneesesssonsssssosseseessesesessscesnessassssonessenessass 13 SAFE SCHOOL PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICTS.........cccecccsseseseseneeens 15 CALIFORNIA SCHOOL SECURITY RESOURCES...ccssessessessssscessessecesssncsscsceseessnesesers 17 SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE ...ssccssessssecsssessseesntssssnsssssssscessusanecessessssessveesssstasessetstesieessecseuseesseeeen 19 MUNICIPAL POLICE OFFICERS/SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS........scceccccessseeeeeeseseeeecssseeeeeeeeaes 20 NON-SWORN CONTRACT SECURITY AND IN-HOUSE SECURITY ......cccccccsccecccceessseetesseeeseeeeeenseens 23 SECURITY SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES.......ccccscseeeeseeeeeees seete cna eteneneenneeeeeeeteenteeeeesnerteeeetenesesesenneneenss 23 TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE AND NON-SWORN SECURITY OFFICERS vosessceseecseecsnesssveesseeensenteseesceseevecensesecesuecensesusseveenesueeanesasssiesueeenssassueeneeeseneenteessesateaseenes 25 SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS1....ccssssssssssssesesssecerseeeseseesesneccectserenseens 27 PAST occcccccccccccccsccccccececcecessesneecneseaeeceecsseesetiecsesasesecaeeeaeeeseesesuaesieeneccresstasecsseeisesiestesssteneesees 28 Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.EA.T.). .cccccccccccccccsecectetteseeetterenetieeeeates 29 Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) .......ccccccccececcece ci ese teens neesaeteseeetneeientesnetieeneats 30 CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROGRAMS........cccccsccccecceesseceeceeuasecaeeseeessseneneaseegaaaseteneesuiiesseeeetenteeseaa 3] Peer Mediation Programs.......ccccccccccccccceccetccvecne ree ceeeeneenecnsccetnecesstiscnaesesesnanesesssnesseeeetenrass 33 Bullying Prevention Prograins.....cccccccccccccccencetene sents euiecee eens eter sneeceesnneessutesnersnreneeneeneteneeas 34 DYCSS COGS .occccccccccccccccccccc cette ec eee eee ccne etn teens ee bees get ae esse es aeeeessaescauesesaeesescsesteeeenssesentiseenieeeenes 35 LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS....csssesssssssssssssssssesssestestennsencnsseneeseenees 37 VIOLENCE PREVENTION PLANNING AND CURRICULA.0...cccccccsccccscssceeensneeaeeseeeeeeescssseeecsennseeeesea 37 Involvement of the JUGICIAVY ....0..ccccccccecccte tet ee tee tee nee tue eeteeesteecneeetetecuniteesieeseneevneeesnaeenieens 38 DATA covceseccccscccscceccacsscsecsscsscesesseeevsescecascaeeaecsecsesecsaseescuseesteaececetneaessseeeeesesiteseevaeseseessetenerareney 39 BETTER SCHOOL CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM EVALUATIONS ...cccccccccesseteeeeeerseeeeseettieeeenns 39 GRANT FUNDING FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS0.0...ccc cee tenner ee rin ee serene tiene tebererieneeesieeneas 40 CRISIS MANAGEMENT.....ccccccccccceeeeeeeeeceeeeeeeeecseseseneceeceaeeeeeseeecsseneessscaarcreseresietsaesessenesneesbansateaes 40 School Police and StaffSecurity Training and Qualifications .0..ccccccccccc cette eter eneeees 41 APPENDIX A: SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY SURVEY...ccssessssssssesssesssessseeecseensess 43 Tables and Charts Table 1: Table 2: Chart 1: Chart 2: Chart 3: Chart 4: Chart 5: Chart 6: Chart 7: Chart 8: Chart 9: Chart 10: Chart 11: Chart 12: Chart 13: Chart 14: Chart 15: ‘Chart 16: Chart 17: Chart 18: Chart 19: Chart 20: Chart 21: Chart 22: Chart 23: Partial List of Federal and State Expenditures for School-Based Violence and Drug Prevention Programsin California...........cccccecccceseeeseecersscstsetececsesseateteanenes 9 Comparative Pay Scales for Law Enforcement Personnel Workingin K-12 SCHOOMS.eeececeeeeeeeceeeeesnevseestecssecseceeeesaeeseesecseessesessesireatsaesacsnstsensseenueseneas 18 Potential for Firearm Violence in U.S. ScHOOIS 0... ceceeeeersteeeeeeeesseeseteeecssesessseeeseees 3 School Associated Deaths: 1992-1999 oooeice cceseeeteteeeteveretseeseeeastecsesessscsssssseesees 4 Street Gangs: Percentage of Students Who Reported that Street Gangs were Present in Their SChOO]......... cc ccscseseeseeseneseecseesseeeeeeeseesasereeseeeeneesaesseascrtsassesacsecsesietateas 5 Public Opinion as to the Causes of School Violence......ccccececessecsescstesesseseeeesseseeatees 6 Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SAFE) by School District Size and Type Of SCHOO] ....ccecccccccssecsseescsceesenecssseeeesceeeseesesseessssesecaesevinensneeeeenseeitans 10 California Public School Crime Trends ......cc.ccccssssssessssessvessessecssessveacsucsseessesesrecaneesseee 14 Numberof Evaluated School Safety Plans by School Type ....c.ccscccesccccssesssesesneseseees 16 Average Percentage of School District Budget Spent on School Safety...eee 17 School District Security Personnel in California .........:ccccceeeeseceseeesseteesesecsesscsseteeees 18 EquipmentUsed by SchoolDistrict Police and Non-Sworn Security Personnel........ 19 Non-Sworn Security Personnel and District Police Officer Reporting Procedures.....20 Municipal Police Working in California School Districts by Size oo... ecceeeeeseeeees 22 Non-Sworn Security and Contract Security in California School Districts by Size Of District 2.0.0. ccccecceeceescececeseesecseseeevecsaneesaesenseseeaeceseeccsecaeeseaeecaesaseeseseeeesineaas 23 School District Surveillance Camera Usage .......cccceecessessscseccreceeeesceseeeeeeeeneceeseresaeseees 24 Districts Utilizing Random Searches and Canine Searches............ccccceeeteseseeteeeeeteeees 25 Non-Sworn Security Personne] Training by School District Size...eeeeeeeeeeee 26 Crime Prevention Strategies Used by California School Grade ..........c:cccceecseeeteeeeees 27 Families and Schools Together (FAST) by School District Size and School Type.....29 Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) by SchoolDistrict Size and School Type .......sseececseceeecseseeeeeeesersscseseeeecarssesssiceesmseieasmecnnarenssessssetenees 30 Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE)by Schoo] District Size and Type Of SCHOOL occ ceccceecccessecscecesceeeneesnscnsceceeessecenesaeaaeeseecsaeeseseseeesereceeeeseesaeesesnesiceceeesnaeanees 3] Violence Prevention: Conflict Resolution Programs by Schoo] District Size and School Type .....cccceececcecseeeeseceeenesesssseesnesserssesevssnegiesereesecteneneereesienenenenetiey 32 Violence Prevention: Anti-Bullying Programs by School District Size and SChOO] Type ...cecceccssesssssesneseneeeesceseeeesesescseessseseessesnenesnesenesesescesereesasentiatasensesseneeney 35 Dress Code Requirements by School District Size and School Type...cece 36 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “The progress ofa state may be measured by the extent to which it safeguards the rights of children.””’ G. Abbott Senator Hughes and Senator Alpert requested that the California Research Bureau (CRB) conduct a survey of school security policies and practices of a representative sample of California school districts. This survey represents the first attempt to assess the security measures and crime prevention resources used by schooldistricts in California. Subsequent events, such as the Columbine High Schooltragedy, have keenly focused public attention on the issue of safety in public schools. The CRB survey finds that schooldistricts in California generally respond to school violence in two distinct ways. The most common approachis through violence prevention curricula whereby individual one-on-one violence and aggressive behavioris addressed through counseling,life skills building, peer mediation and conflict resolution. The other, but less commonapproach,is to make it physically difficult for terrorist acts to occur on school campuses by using a combination ofhighly visible security personnel along with detection technologies such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras, and more conventional security measures such as canine searches, locks, and metal bars. Few school districts are prepared to deal with a catastrophic event, such as the taking of hostages or a tragedy such as that at Columbine. Key findings from the CRB survey ofinterest to policymakers include: e Most of the largest school districts (more than 22,000 students) in California combine violence prevention program curricula with a strong police and security presence. In contrast, many ofthe state’s smallest school districts (less than 1,000 students) do not have a visible law enforcement presence on school campuses and do not see a need to have one. e Many school districts in the state are incorporating the use of closed circuit video surveillance cameras (CCTV), canine searches, and metal detectors into their school safety programs. e The vast majority of school districts actively use violence prevention and anti-drug use curricula, but are unable to directly measure the impact or effectiveness of the curricula on reducing violence and drug use amongstudents. National studies suggest wide variation in effectiveness. e Many small schooldistricts (under 5,000 students) and elementary and middle schools in some average size schooldistricts (less than 22,000 students) rely primarily upon schoolstaff, teachers and volunteers to provide supervision and security during school hours. | The involvementof students, parents and a broad range of civic and public officials in violence prevention planning and implementation is key to an effective program, according California Research Bureau, California State Library 1 to the research literature. Few California school districts have brought together these kinds of resourcesat the local level to formulate a community response. For example, the CRB study found that: ¢ Local judges are not involved in violence prevention planningat the school or school district level even though they makedecisions injuvenile, dependency, family and criminal courts affecting school-age children. e¢ Schools do not have access to data to track individuals and families involved in the judicial system so as to improve the focus of services provided by the school. ¢ School safety plans do not include a full range of security issues, but instead focus primarily on data collectionofschool-related :crime, emergency procedures, dress codes,-and harassmentpolicies, as currentlyrequired:by state law (Education:Code, Section 35294.1 et seq.). e Schools may not have adequate.data about youth drug:use andviolence i n the community to formulate an effective response. The.survey found a wide range of professionalism in school security. Nearly 13,000 part- time andfull-time ‘schooldistrictpersonnel provide security in California’sK-12 schools. However, a substantial number of these personnel are not trained norcertified to perform: safety nor security-related: work. Most are teachers, staff or volunteers. In contrast, around half of the state’s largest schooldistricts (studentpopulation of over 22,000) have their own police forces. Only ten percent of medium-sizeddistricts (student population 5,000 to 21,999) and very few smallerdistricts (studentpopulation under 5,000) have a dedicate school police force. A substantial number of school districts haveagreements and contracts with municipal police or other local law enforcement agencies for security: more than 900 municipal police officers provide security at K-12 school districts: Finally, survey findings and the evaluation literature raise important policy questions about the effectiveness of the violence and drug prevention programs used-by schoo]districts. These programs receive significant public funding (nearly $100 million in 1998/99) yet most lack any outcome data. One prominent researcher, Delbert Elliott, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence in Colorado, contends that “we are wasting: money on programsthat have been.demonstrated not to work.” 2 California Research Bureau, California State Library VIOLENCE IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS School safety is a serious problem. Nearly 3 million crimes a year are committed in or near the 85,000 U.S. public schools. About one in nine public school teachers, and one in four public school students, reported being victims of violence in 1996. School crime and vandalism cost taxpayers an estimated $200 million a year.” School violence can include gangactivity, locker thefts, bullying and intimidation, gun use, assault—anyactivity that produces a victim. According to a recent poll, many American teenagers believe that a shooting rampage like the one in Littleton, Colorado, could happenat their school and think they know student who might be troubled enoughto carry one out.” Aboutfour out often students polled said they know studerits who have threatened to kill someone, but few reported the threat to schoolofficials. A 1999 survey of male high school and middle school students by the JosephsonInstitute found that one in four high school students and nearly onein five middle school students carried a firearm to school in the last year. A third of the middle school students said they could get a firearm if they wanted one, as could 60 percent of high school students (Chart 1).4. A recently released federal study finds that while there has been a reduction in the numberof high school students whoreported carrying a firearm to school between 1991 and 1997, up to 60 percentstill have access to firearms.” From 1992 to the present, firearm-related shootings accounted for 78 percent ofall school- associated homicidesandsuicides.° . Chart 1 Potential for Firearm Violence in U.S. Schools (high and middle school students) 100 - 90 80 C1 Male High 70 School Student: 60 ms = g °0 EJ Male Middle 2 40 School Students Took:a firearm to school Could get a firearm if they wanted Source: JosephsonInstitute of Ethics, 1999 Random and spontaneousacts of violence, like that which occurred at Columbine High School,instill a climate of fear in schools. But most violent school-related crimes involve an interpersonal dispute and a single offender and victim. California Research Bureau, California State Library 3 Chart2 School Associated Deaths: 1992-1999 n = —_ ss o a om ° be a = E 5 Zz Unknown Interpersonal - Suicide Gang-Related Hate'Crime* . Bully-Related Firearm-Related Dispute Reason For Deaths Source: National School Safety.Center, 1999 *Includes Columbine Shootings Like most learning, the earliest sources of school’violence begin in the family. Children bring into the classroom their family environment, their experiences in the neighborhood, their attitudes about how to handle frustrations and discipline, and their entire socialization and view of the world. Weak-parental bonding,ineffective parenting (lax monitoring, discipline, and supervision), exposure to violence in the home, and a social climate that glorifies violence put children at risk for being violentlaterin life.’ Outside of the home, school is a place where children from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds cometogether to spend the greater part of their day. Incidents of violence mayarise dueto racial tensions, cultural differences in attitudes and behavior, and neighborhoodrivalries. Once in school, peer pressure in the middle or high schoolis a major influence on at-risk teens, who often compete for acceptance and status amongpeers. Serious violence at or near schools is often associated with youths or groups of youth who may be seen as failures in school and rejected by their peers. Without intervention by parents and school, these rejected teens may form new bonds among themselves, rationalizing their disengagement from peers and fomenting anger. In communities where youth are exposed to violence through gangs and drugs, teens have a moredifficult time resolving conflicts non-violently. Violence can be modeled, encouraged, and rewarded. Violencecrossesall social and economic boundaries. Gangs, drugs, weapons, and juvenile crime are increasingly present in rural, suburban, and urban communities and schools. For example, school-related multiple murders overthe last two years have occurred in small, rural, and predominately white communities lacking histories of high-profile violence and high crimerates. 4 California Research Bureau, California State Library Gangs and drugs are important indicators of a problem. In 1995, students who reported that they had been victimsof a violent crime at school were also morelikely to report that drugs were available at school than students who had not (73 percent to 65 percent). Although urban students were morelikely to report street gangs at their schools than were suburban orrural students, between 1989 and 1995, school gangs increasedin all three residential categories (Chart 3).* Chart 3 Percentage of Students Who Reported That Street Gangs Were Present in Their Schools 405 Urban 354 E&] Suburban 304 @ Rural 254 Li 207 Pe rc en ta ge 1989 1995 Source: National Crime Victimization Survey, 1996 The 1995 National School Crime Survey found that students perceive specific areas in the schoo: (such as entrances, hallways, or restrooms,) as unsafe. They also fear being attacked on the wayto and from school. According to the survey, between 1989 and 1995, the percentage of students age 12 through 19 who reported fearing being attacked or harmed on the wayto and from school, and who avoided one or more placesat school, nearly doubled. In 1996, the Departments of Justice and Education foundthat nearly three times more nonfatal violent crimes with student victims occurred away from school than in school (255,000 incidents to 671,000 incidents).” Public Opinion About the Causes of Youth Violence Even though school violence has been a concern for manyyears, there are different perspectives about its causes. For example, the public and the education community sometimes view school violence differently. With frequent newsstories about student violence, the public may feel that schools are not doing their part to stop violence. On the other hand, many educators do not see schools as violent places, but rather as places where students congregate and bring community and family problemsthat might erupt into violence. In a 1998 Gallop poll survey, when respondents were asked the major problems California Research Bureau, California State Library 5 facing public schools, the top three answers were “lack of discipline by schools,” “violence/fighting,” and “drug use.” In contrast, a 1998 survey of school district administrators ranked the.most serious problems facing school principals as student tardiness (41 percent), absenteeism/cutting class (25 percent), and physical conflicts among students (21 percent). In responding to student behavioral problems,school districts suspendedstudents for more than five days (49 percent ofthe time), expelled students (31 percentofthe time), or transferred studentsto alternative schools/programs(20 percent of the time).!° Some commentators assert that young people’s failure to learn fundamental moral values is one reason for school violence, while others see glorified violence.in the culture as a contributing factor. According to.a 1999national survey ofparents and teens, only 37 percent ofthe respondents were of the opinion that today’s children will grow up to make America a better place. The same poll found the public disturbed by the lack of values such as honesty, civility and responsibility in America’s youth.’ According to a 1999 NEWSWEEKpoll, 90 percent of Americansbelieve that parents today do:not spend as.muchtime with their teenagers as they should, and over 40 percent believe that baby boomers do not provide-enough guidanceto give their teens.a strong base.'* Ina CNN media poll conductedafter the Jonesboro and Columbinetragedies, the top three responsesto “who or whatis:mostresponsible for school violence,”were parents, access to guns, and the media (see:Chart 4). =. Chart 4 . PublicOpinion as to the Causes of‘School Violence % o f S c h o o l Di st ri ct s Parents : Access to Guns , The Media Source: CNN Telephone Poll, 1998 and 1999 6 California Research Buréau, California State Library Contemporary Approaches to School Safety According to researchers, two common community responses occur after every high- profile case of school violence: e “Wenever thought it could happen here.” e “There is nothing you can do to prepare for such incidents.” Someparents and students have respondedto school safety concerns by moving to home schooling. In the last two years, home schooling has increased from 700,000 to 1.5 million schooi-age children. According to Brian Ray, President of the National Home Education ResearchInstitute, “In the last couple of years we are seeing more parents concerned with safety at schools whetherits violence, drugs, or psychological and emotional safety.”!° Someschools have developed comprehensive school safety plans that incorporate effective, research-based programsandstrategies, zero-tolerance policies for drugs and weapons, and community collaboration. The goal of such plansis to create and maintain a positive and welcoming school climate, free of drugs, violence, and intimidation, in which teachers can teach and students can learn. According to national school security experts, there are three basic elements for establishing an effective school safety policy: "4 e Improving data collection to measure the extent of the problem. Schools and communities cannot develop effective strategies, nor allocate prevention resources effectively, without a thorough understanding of the nature and extent of youth drug use and violence in the community. e Involving community and local organizations in the development and implementation of school safety plans. Active participation from parents, teachers, students, law enforcement officers, elected officials and business leadersis crucial. e Using a variety of crime prevention programsorstrategies to effectively meet the needsofall students. Successful school safety plans involve a variety of broad-based strategies, policies, and programs that focus on improving the overall quality of the school environment. According to TIME magazine, hand-held metal detectors, the adoption of school uniforms or clothing restrictions, surveillance cameras, and panic alarms have become common policies for schools since the schoolviolence in Jonesboro and Littleton.’> One Maryland county schooldistrict has installed a sophisticated $685,000 camera surveillance system in all 23 high schools, issued student identification cards, stationed uniformedpolice officers on campuses and created back door exits for administrative offices. “I never thought in my career I would recommendelectronic cameras in schools. But we’ve never had anything like this before in America,” said Superintendent Paul Vance, of Montgomery School District.!® A Connecticut schooldistrict stations plain-clothes guardsat all school campuses and armedpolice at school entrances, and has teams of counselors looking for warning signs among troubled students. In Indiana, the state superintendent and department of education collaborated with Indianapolis law enforcement to stage a mock California Research Bureau, California State Library 7 school hostage simulation. Nonetheless, many school districts are unprepared to deal with an event of random violence such as at Jonesburo or Columbine, according to the National School Board Association’s school security expert.'” Someschoolsafety experts are calling for the use of telephones in each classroom,a cell | phonefor each school, breathalyzers in each high school, and surveillance cameras in schoolareas that are security risks.'® Several states have created anonymoustoll-free telephonehotlines or internetsites for persons to report students with guns and weapons on school campuses. Several state attorneys general have established school safety task force websites that update current andproposedstate laws pertainingto school safety and crisis preparation. However, the most common violence-prevention measuresare relatively inexpensive. A 1998 study found thatthe direct prevention plan most commonly reported by school district administrators includes placingteachersin hallways, grouping :troubledstudents in alternative schools, and requiring visitor registration.”° Selected School Drugand Crime Prevention Funding Programs Thereare a numberof school violenceprevention programs. Although much emphasis has been placed on drug prevention funding, violence prevention programs have had the most success. Somefocuson individual.children whoare identified by teachers or peers as aggressiveor at risk for schoolfailure. These programsstrive to increase studentsocial competence and to reduce aggressive ‘behavior. Anotherset of programs focuses on family riskby working with parents, peers, and community members. Otherprogramsattemptto change the school environment. Still others believe the best way to address the school violence issue is to focus on legal reform, including federal civil rights legislation to establish the rights of children to attend schools which are, safe, secure and peaceful.”” State legislatures have recently enactedlegislation improving the access of schools to juvenile justice information and recordsfor schools and juvenile justice agencies, increasing security onschool grounds, and enacting tough penalties for serious juvenile ~ felons. The federal governmenthas spentnearly $6 billion since 1985 on school drug and alcohol prevention programs. A numberofstates, including California, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahomaand Utah, have established community-based violence prevention programsthat involve public schools as partners with other agencies and organizations, such as law enforcement and nonprofits. However, many of these programs do not have a consistent long-time funding base. Others, such as some drug prevention programs, are not rated effective by program evaluations.”! . Federal and state grant fundsare available to schooldistricts for crime prevention programs. In California, schooldistricts generally rely on federal formula grant programs such as Title IV and federal and state discretionary grants to pay for drug and violence “Many ofthe lessons learned from this exercise are available in a training video andregional training workshop on school security and crisis preparedness sponsored by the Indiana Department of Education. Thetraining videois entitled, “Youth Crisis Planning and Response to Hostage Taking in Schools.” 8 California Research Bureau, California State Library prevention efforts. Formula grants, which are allocated according to population, give schools and-schooldistricts wide latitude on how to use the funds. Discretionary grants must be applied for and usually have specified criteria that restrict the use of the funds. Schools and districts often piece these funding grants together along with general funds to meet their most pressing crime prevention needs. Most grant programs do not require schools and districts to evaluate or compile data on the outcome of the programsor their effect on student behavior. Table 1 Partial List of Federal and State Expenditures for School-Based Violence and Drug Prevention Programsin California FY 1999/2000 Funding Program Agency Funding for Strategy California Safe and Drug Free Schools and U.S. Department of $59.5 million Schoolstaff training and Communities Act (Title IV) Education (formula) curriculum development School Policing and Partnership Calif. Departments of $3 million Police and community agency Act Justice and Education (discretionary) collaboration Conflict Resolution and Youth Calif. Department of $.9 million School violence prevention Mediation Program Education (discretionary) 21% Century Community Learning U.S. Departmentof $24.6 million Schooldistrict curriculum Center Programs Education (discretionary) developmentfor reentering students High Risk Education and Public Calif. Department of $18 million School program developmentfor Safety Education (discretionary) reentering at-risk students Gang Risk Intervention Program Calif. Departments of $3 million County Education departments Justice and Education (discretionary) and local law enforcement Gang Crime and Violence Calif. Department of $3 million Police and community agency Prevention Partnership Program Justice _(discretionary) collaboration After School Learning and Safe U.S. Department of $50 million Schools, community agencies, Neighborhoods Partnerships Education (discretionary) elected officials, and parent Program _| __| collaboration Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of1994 (Title IV) This federally-funded formula grant program is used by school districts as they deem appropriate to provide instruction, student counseling, teachers andstaff training, before- and after-school programs and community service, and violence prevention curriculum development and acquisition. It is also used to fund Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), a well-known prevention program, and red-ribbon week. Program flexibility also allows school districts to spend up to 20 percent of their annual allotment for safety measures such as installing metal detectors and hiring security personnel. While California school districts are not required to report to the Department of Education on how the funds are spent, in FY 1998/99 they were required to spend the funds on “research-based” strategies. California-school districts received $59.5 million (or about $4.83 per student) in FY 1998/99. In FY 1999/00, schooldistricts in California will receive $49.4 million (or about $4.02 per student). The CRB schoolsurvey foundthat schooldistricts of all sizes aroundthe state use these funds for drug prevention programs. However, fewer high schools in small- and medium- California Research Bureau, California State Library sized school districts receive these funds (see Chart 5, page 10). One small school district reported receiving less than $100 in.FY 1997/98,so the district placed it on reserve until there was enough to accomplish something meaningful.” Some small and rural school district officials indicate that drug abuseis not an issue in their schools, which mayin part explain why they participate less in SAFE. Chart5 Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SAFE) by School District Size and Type.of School 100- 904 ~ 804 oC “= 704 z 60-/7 4 OK-6 Sy Ss 40 [MS/JHS WH al S 30+ WHS =~ 20- 10+ 0-4 an eee as fs : ee 999 or Less. 1,000-4,999 5,000-21,999 22,000+ (N=46)* (N536) ~~ 0 (N=34) (N=42) School District Student Population Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 . *N = NumberofDistricts School Policing and PartnershipAct of1998 (Intervention-based) This state-funded discretionary grant program is available to schools and schooldistricts to form partnerships with law enforcement and community agencies to prevent crime and violence in schools (AB 1756, Chapter 317, Statutes of 1998). According to a survey by the California Department-of Justice, 67 percent of-school districts have school safety teamsthat include schoolsite staff, law:enforcement,‘and probation officers. In addition, 40 percent of these school districts include community representatives and volunteers in | their partnerships.” Thestate allocated $3 million forthe program inFY 1999/2000. Conflict Resolution and Youth Mediation Grants This state Department of Education program providesdiscretionary grant funds to schools and schooldistrict:to implement a variety of school violence reductionprograms and strategies to addressidentified local needs. The mini grants are administered through County Offices of Education. Thestate Fiscal Year 1998/99 budgetallocated $280;000 for conflict resolution program grants and $625,000 for community policing and partnership ' grants. 10 CaliforniaResearch Bureau, California State Library High-Risk Youth Education and Public Safety This state Department of Education program provides $19 million for two five-year discretionary grant programsto schooldistricts and county offices of education to help at- risk youth leaving a county or state juvenile justice facility with the necessary resources to reenter school. The program requires close collaboration between the schooldistrict, the school, county probation, and the family to provide structured 8-12 hours per day programming for the student. According to the Department of Education, 19 school districts receive funding for the program in FY 1999/2000. The 21st Century Community Learning Center Program. This U.S. Department of Education grant program provides expandedlearning opportunities for participating children in a safe, drug-free and supervised environment. Granteesare free to design their own programsto meet their after-school needs. Three- year demonstration grants are administered by schools or school districts. In FY 1998/99, $200 million was available nationally for demonstration grants. In California, 59 schools or school districts received $24.6 million for their projects. This amounts to 12 percent of the available federal funds, although California has 15 percent of the nation’s school-age population. It is anticipated that as much as $600 million will be available nationally for FY 1999/2000. Gang Risk Intervention Program (GRIP) This state discretionary grant program ($3 million annually) is administered by the Departmentof Justice through County Offices of Education, with the goal of keeping gangs out of schools by involving parents, teachers, school administrators, nonprofit community organizations, and gang experts in the decision-making process. School districts with GRIP programs provide counseling for students, connectstudentsto positive sports and cultural activities, provide job training to students (including apprenticeship programsand career exploration in the community), and create opportunities for youth to have positive interactions with law enforcementofficers. In FY 1999/2000,thirty school programsreceived $3 million. Gang Crime and Violence Prevention Partnership Program This discretionary grant program is administered by the California Departmentof Justice and is designedto assist schools, parents, community groups and law enforcement agencies by providing basic information and innovative strategies to help prevent youth from joining gangs. About $3 million annually is available to community-based organizations and non-profits that are working in partnership with schools and/or law enforcement. After School Learning and Safe Neighborhoods Partnerships Program. This state funded multi-purpose discretionary grant program is targeted at schoolsthat are successful at building broad-based support from local neighborhoods, parents, community California Research Bureau, California State Library 1] groups,local elected officials, and churches to help students with their after school academic andrecreational needs. The Department of Education is responsible for awarding grants to schoolsites that demonstrate.a need for these services and the capacity to bring together diverse local:community groupsthat are committed to the program. Schooldistricts in.Sacramento, Los.Angeles,.and San Diego counties (START, BEST, and Critical Hours Programs) are considered by the Department of Education to have model programs. In FY 1999/2000, $50 million was available. Schools had to matchthe awarded grants on a dollar per dollar basis. 12 California Research Bureau, California State Library BRIEF HISTORY OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION EFFORTSIN CALIFORNIA In the spring of 1974, the Attorney General and the Superintendent of Public Education convened an Ad Hoc Task Force on “Management of Conflict and Crime in Schools.” The catalyst was concern about gang involvement on school campuses, increasing acts of violence and assault, and general problemsofdiscipline and control, especially in Los Angeles schools. The Task Force concluded that there wasverylittle coordination between school and criminaljustice officials, prevention efforts and crisis planning were non-existent, and that reporting of school-related crime waspoor, not uniformly coded, and lacked a statewide mandate.” In1980, Attorney General George Deukmejian filed a uniquecivil action in Los Angeles Superior Court (Civil No. 64340). The action sought to clarify the law regarding both the constitutional rights of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school children, and the duties of various defendants including the city council, board of supervisors, district attorney, police department and sheriff's departmentto eliminate or reduce school violence. The civil action, entitled 4 Lawsuit to Restore Safety in the Schools, contended that: Children are being compelled to attend schools where conditions exist which adults would nevertolerate in places of work. Adults can speak and act for our children who cannot speak and act for themselves. Students should be able to attend school without fear of being subject to physical violence.” The lawsuit was dismissed in Los Angeles Superior Court on the groundsthat the State had no right to file an action against a local government entity.’ The School Attendance Improvement Act of1980 funded 32 schooldistricts in a pilot program to reduce truancy, improve attendance through rewards, train teachers and counselors in new discipline strategies, and allow police on campus.”° (Outcome information on the successorfailure of this pilot project is not available.) In 1982, the people voted to add Article 1, Section 28(a) and 28(c), to the California Constitution, establishing the inalienable constitutional right to safe, secure and peaceful schools. In 1984, the legislature enacted a new uniformedstate school crime reporting structure (Penal Code, Section 628 et seq.). Legislation was also enacted giving law enforcement leeway to pursue and investigate juvenile crime on campus (Welfare and Institution Code, Section 625 and 625.1). More recent legislation authorizes three-year demonstration grants to schooldistricts to prevent truancy, antisocial behavior, and delinquency (Chapter 200, Statutes of 1997). “Attorney General George Duekmejian, “A Lawsuit to Restore Safety in the Schools,” Campus Strife,The Educator’s Crime Prevention Quarterly, California Department of Justice, 1980/81 ' This decision was appealed to the State Appellate Court where it was upheld shortly after in a non- published decision (Civil No. 64341). California Research Bureau, California State Library 13 California was.one.ofthe first states in the nation to mandate the collection of uniform crime data on school crime. However, the collection process was neither consistent school-to-school or district-to-district, according to the Department of Education. Many schooldistricts did not systematically collect data nor have reliable computerized systems. Some schooldistricts initiated zero tolerance policies that led to increased:reporting of school crime incidents, while other districts remained more tolerant of such incidents and did not report them. These factorsled to an “over-.and under-reporting”problem that damaged the reputation of some schools and affected the willingness ofothers to report crime data. As a result, the school crime reporting system was temporarily suspended in 1993 until a more reliable system could be developed.” The California Safe Schools Assessmentbecame law in 1995, requiring all schoo} districts to report incidence of school crime under a new and uniform reporting structure (Penal Code Section 628 et seq.). Unlike previous years whenschool crime data was ‘not uniformly reported or audited, the-new system’requires a management team from several different'state‘and private agencies ‘to auditand‘cross-check:data‘submitted’by schools and schooldistricts. This process assuresto a certain degree that schools and school districts are interpreting and reporting school crime in’the same manner. Chart 6 reports data over a three-year period from California schools, drawn from the improvedreporting structure. There have been significant reductions in crimes against persons and property, but not in drug and alcohol offenses. Chart 6 California Public School Crime Trends 55 9951996 m1997| In ci de nt s pe r 1, 00 0 St ii dé nt s” Crimes Against Persons Drug and Alcohol Offenses Property Crimes Source: California Department of Education 14 California Research Bureau, California State Library Safe School Plan Developmentin California School Districts California schools are required to have a safe school plan completed by. September 1998 (Education Code, Section 35294.1 et seq.), although small school districts (under 2,500 students) can develop a district-wide plan. School site councils (Education Code Section 52853) are responsible for developing the safe school plans. Schools are generally required to include the followingin the plan: e A process to assess school-related crime. e Strategies to help ensure school safety such as routine and emergencydisaster _ procedures, child abuse reporting, and policies to notify teachers about students who commit serious acts that require expulsion or suspension from school. e A sexual harassmentpolicy. e A dress code policy that bans apparel that could threaten the health and safety of the student body. Schools could include the local school site council’s recommendationsin the safety plan, and were required to use the School/Law Enforcement Partnership publication Safe Schools: A Planning Guide for Action as a resource. Schools were prohibited from contracting with private consultants to develop their plans. The Safe Schools Plan law is scheduled to expire on January 1, 2000. Legislation (SB 334) has been passed to make the requirement permanent, including yearly updating. The CRB school survey found that all school districts have completed a school safety plan as required. However, many schools have not incorporated crisis management planning (respondingto terrorist act such as that at Columbine High School) into school safety plans. This is not currently a requirement of school safety plans. According to judges interviewed for this report, the judiciary has been largely absent from the discussion and developmentof school safety plans. They believe that family, juvenile, dependency, and criminal courts and their administrative adjuncts could be important elements in promoting and preserving safe schools and should be part of the community planning process. A key is how to identify “at-risk” students. Recently enacted iegislation (4B /366) requires that teachers and counselors undergotraining to identify at-risk students for counseling. On the other hand, “confidentiality and privacy laws” makeit difficult for county social service agencies to share information with school districts about troubled young people andtheir families.”” Judges can facilitate information sharing between county, school and criminaljustice institutions to improve protection for children, school staff and the public.”® Schools are also required to evaluate and amendtheir safety plans no less than once a year to ensure that they are updated and properly implemented. The CRB school survey found that many schooldistricts in the state have not yet undertaken school safety plan evaluations, as shown in Chart 7. The intention is that activities stated in a school safety plan be measuredas to their success in meeting the plan’s goals. While the legal requirementthat school districts have a safe school plan in place sunsets January 1, 2000, the evaluation requirement does not. Therefore, schools that have not met the evaluation requirements are required to do so. California Research Bureau, California State Library 15 60 50~ 1 wn : oO i | - ae E 40 2 2 —-—___ 3 30- = o wn S 20 x 10 0 Se : Se Si : * K-6 (N=92)* . , ‘Junior High.School (N=66) High School (N=62) Types of Schools Source: California Research Bureau School Sutvey, 1999 . *N = NumberofDistricts Chart 7 Numberof Evaluated School Safety Plans by School Type California Research Bureau, California State Library CALIFORNIA SCHOOL SECURITY RESOURCES According to the CRB survey, the average schooldistrict security and safety budgetis less than two percent ofthe total district budget, although eight districts report a higher percentage. The vast majority of small schooldistricts report spending less than $100,000. About a third of the largest districts, and a few of the medium-sizeddistricts, spent more than $1 million, while another third of schooldistricts reported spending between $1 million and $500,000. , Chart 8 Average Percentage of School District Budget Spent on 5 School Safety* | Ba Tc as a Sa 2 S 4 1.75% Bay o wy <1 Wane DOE 999 or Less 1,000-4,999 5,000-21,999 22,000+ (N=46)** (N=36) (N=34) (N=42) Student Population * Includes personnel, equipment and administrative costs Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 +*N = Number of Districts Traditionally teachers, administrators, and support stafffilled the role of school security, but no longer can do both jobs adequately in many schools. The CRB survey found that mostschooldistricts in California use a combination of non-sworn in-house security (including teachers, administrators, and support staff), contract security, school police and municipal police. Maintaining a dedicated school police force requires a considerable financial commitment. Relative cost may be one factor influencing choice of security personnel (see Table 2, page 17). California Research Bureau, California State Library 17 Chart 9 School DistrictSecurity Personnel in California* 14000 5 12000 10000 8000 6000 N u m b e r o f P e r s o n n e l 4000 5 2000fo 930 825 Non-Sworn Security Municipal Police School District Police Contract Security Type of Security Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 “Projection based on:survey Non-sworn school security and non-sworn contract security personnel also provide security services to California schooldistricts. Included among these personnel are school faculty, other school employees and volunteers. Basedon the CRB survey sample, an estimated 12,924 non-sworn security personnel provide school security services in California school districts (see Chart 9). Contract security personnel, and non-sworn security personnel employed for thatpurpose by California schooldistricts, usually report to the site administratoror their designee, and receive their assignments from them as well. Their average pay rangeis $8.00 per hour for part-time work to $12.00 per hour for full-time work. Table 2 Comparative Pay Scales for Law Enforcement Personnel Workingiin K-12 Schools AVERAGE MONTHLY OR Type of Agency HOURLY WAGE Municipal Police $4,350 Sheriffs $4,000 School District Police $3,200 Non-Sworn School and Contract ($8.00 to $12.00 an Hour) Security Personnel Source: Peace Officers Standards and Training, 1999 18 California Research Bureau, California State Library Chart 10 Equipment Used by SchoolDistrict Police and Non-Sworn Security Personnel Non-Sworn Security Personnel (N=74) District Security Personnel (N=47) 100 90 £ 80 = 70 wnZL “a a 60 S 50 S40a 4 S 30 ° s 29 19 0 Baton Firearm Handcuffs Mace Equipment Type Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 Schooldistrict police officers (and in some cases, non-sworn security personnel) are authorized by law to carry firearms, batons, handcuffs and mace. According to the CRB survey, seven in ten schooldistricts with district police allow their officers to carry all the safety equipmentavailable to them, including firearms, but only onein ten districts allow contract security personnel to carry firearms (see Chart 10 above). This could reflect the uneasiness schooldistricts and communities have aboutthe use and presenceoffirearms on school campuses. For example, one large urban schooldistrict recently disallowed contracted municipal police from carrying firearms on school grounds. School District Police Schooldistrict police are employees of the districts. Their numbers and duties vary from district to district and, in many cases, from school to school within the same district. Schooldistrict police officers are authorized to carry firearms, investigate crime scenes, submit crime reports to the district attorney and juvenile courts, make arrests under certain circumstances, and obtain search warrants. Projected from findings of the CRB survey, there are about 825 schooldistrict police officers in the state.” The reasonsthat a school district might prefer a dedicated schooldistrict police force vary, but the most importantare their availability at all times to respond to a serious incident, and their familiarity with the schools and students. The CRB school survey found that less than half of the largest school districts in the state have a dedicated police force. Less than a third of school district police forces provide 24-hour security for ” Responding schooldistricts reported 624 full time school district police, 525 municipal police, and 4,097 non-sworn security and non-security personnel. The survey sample composition is representative, allowing statewide projections. California Research Bureau, California State Library 19 schooldistrict property. Schooldistricts evidently place a higher priority on maintaining a daytime police presence on campusesthan on protecting school property around the clock. Schoolprincipals, or their designees,are the final decision-makers for most school district police and other security personnel issues involving student discipline, investigations and other security-related decisions (see Chart 11). According to one. schoolpolice officer, “It often is selective on the part of the administrator as to what gets reported, who gets involved and whogets notified. I find that a little concerning. There needs to bea| written standard procedure.” Abouta third of school districts with a school police force maintain a traditionallaw enforcement chain of commandreporting structure involving studentcrime, investigations and security issues. In these districts, there is-a district-employed police chief. Chart 11 — Non-Sworn SecurityPersonnel and District Police Officer Reporting Procedures 100- ve 90” ; — : y @ Security Personnel (N=99)* ‘Er District Personnel (N=55) L 80+" : & ~£ 70 A 60" 3 50” 5 a!wm 407 fos ° 30- = : 20- 10; Site Central Office Administrative District Police Other Administrator Administrator Designee Chief Reporting System Source; California Research Bureau School Survey,.1999 . .N = Total number of respondents Municipal Police Officers/School Resource Officers The CRB survey foundthat nearly half of all the responding large schooldistricts and one fifthof the smaller school districts employmunicipalpolice officers/safety resource officers (SRO) to provide security in. their districts (see Chart 12), SROs are usually city or county law enforcementofficers, or in some cases a probationofficer, assigned by their departments to work.in the schools within their jurisdiction. According to the CRB survey, over 500 municipal police officers/SROs provide security and resourcesin 54 of the responding schooldistricts, which projects to approximately 930 officers working in schooldistricts acrossthe state. 20 CaliforniaResearch Bureau, California State Library For many schooldistricts, the advantages of contracting for municipal police are that they are fully sworn officers with police authority and street experience to enforce the law on campus, and havethetraining to provide anti-drug education and student counseling. Students from urban communities respect the difference betweencity police and any other kindof officer.”” According to one schooldistrict superintendent, “there’s an instant respect factor for municipal police on school campuses.” Some large school districts are considering replacing their dedicated school police forces with municipal police officers from local jurisdictions, according to survey responses. Municipal police are an expensive option, earning an average monthly salary of $4,350, according to the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST). A substantial number of municipal police officers employed by schooldistricts are funded with federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants which will expire before FY 2001, unless Congress authorizes additional funding? Whether school districts continue to employ municipalpolice officers for security on school campuses after local COPSgrants expire could be a key policy concern for local public officials. Several schooldistricts also employ county probation officers at high school and middle school campuses to work with selected at-risk students and to provide information and counseling to others. Fresno School District has been the leader in this innovative approach. In 1994,the district established a partnership with the city police and county probation departmentsto bring officers onto school campuses. Students who commit minor misdemeanors,either on- or off-campus, must complete a six-month contract with a probation officer who monitors their school progress and daily activities. School caseloads for probation officers can range from 50 to 100 students. Together with the municipal police officers who are also assigned to school campuses, they form a unique school safety partnership in the Fresno School District. Chart 12 Municipal Police Working in California School Districts by Size 500 ] 450-4 N O O N 400 -/ 350- K O N 300-)° 250" 200-7 N u m b e r o f Of fi ce rs 150-7 100“ 999 orless 1,000-4,999 5,000-21,999 22,000+ Student Population Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 California Research Bureau, Califormia State Library 2] A numberofdistricts use a combinationofstaffing options. For example, some schools. have non-sworn in-housesecurity thatiis, supplemented with municipal police officers/SROs. Otherdistrictsuse non-sworn in-house security for daily duties and use _ contract security for special purposes, such as securing transportation depots or buildings used at night. This is a reasonable divisionoflabor. The.municipal police/SROs can focustheir efforts on enforcing and investigating criminal offenses, and on classroom instruction andstudent counseling. Meanwhile, in-house security personnel. can conduct preventive patrols, supervise commonareas, and conduct security assessments. 22 California Research Bureau, California State Library Non-Sworn Contract Security and in-House Security According to the CRB survey, non-sworn security personnel are by far the largest security presence on school campusesacross the state. Nearly 4,097 non-sworn security personnel are employedor contracted for by responding schooldistricts statewide, projected to nearly 13,000 statewide (see Chart 13). About half of these personnel perform less than full-time security-related work. Duties for many non-sworn schoolsecurity and contract security personnel vary from district to district and, in many cases, from school to school within the samedistrict. Dependingontheir level of training (see training standards discussion below), non-sworn school security personnel may have limited arrest powers and authority to carry firearms. Contract security personnel usually receive relatively low pay (averaging about $8.00 per hour for part-time work to $12.00 per hour for full-time work ). They also have a high turnoverrate, which can lead to inconsistency in enforcing security measures. Chart 13 Non-SwornSecurity and Contract Security in California School Districts by Size of District 3000+ 2,662 25007 *Non-Sworn In-House Security G Contract Security 2000+ 1500--~ 1000 - N u m b e r o f P e r s o n n e l 500+~ 1,000-4,999 5,000-21,999 Student Population 999 orless 22,000+ Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 Security Search Technologies In 1981, special lighting and building alarms were highly regarded by many school districts as sound approachesto crime prevention. Today, closed circuit video surveillance cameras (CCTV)are the preferred physical security measures used in school districts. According to the CRB school survey: * 29 percent of schooldistricts use CCTV cameras on schoolbuses; e 22 percent of the districts place CCTV cameras on campuses; and e 13 percent use CCTV cameras to monitor other school property. California Research Bureau, California State Library 23 Chart 14 SchoolDistrict Surveillance Camera Usage* 100 coh % o f S c h o o l Di st ri ct s “Bus” ~ ~~ Campus Other’ Camera Surveillance Uses Source: California Research Bureau School'Survey, 1999. : oo “Sixty-five schooldistricts reported using camera surveillance This is an impressive increase from 1996, when a CRB study foundthat only a few school _ districts in California ‘had placed CCTYsurveillance cameras on campus.” " Schooldistricts across the country began using CCTV surveillance systems in the mid-1990s before the recent waveoftragic school:shootings. Some district administrators now believe that CCTV cameras are an essential part:.ofscrime prevention in schools.32 When asked whether an effective CCTV surveillance systemcould have prevented the Columbine killings, a Huntsville, Alabama school district official said “probably not, but it could have minimized the damage."33 icts are employing random student searches for weaponsand drugs, especially in middle; numberoflarge school districts use hand-held metal detectors before.and:during the schoo day, andat after-school events. ‘Manyschooldistricts also use caninesto searchfor ‘drugs and weapons (see Chart 15 below). ‘Searchesare usually conducted randomly and/or when thereis a suspicion that drugs or weaponsare on campus. Trained dogs check lockers, rest rooms, and other commonareasof school buildings. Canines are also used in elementary schools (K-6)aspart of the “Just Say No to Drugs” program. Increasingly, school 24 California Research Bureau, California State Library Chart 15 Districts Utilizing Random Seaches and Canine Searches 100 - 90- 80- 70- 60 + 50- 40- % o f S c h o o l Di st ri ct s 301 a 20+ Random Searches (N=154) Canine Searches (N=155) Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 (N= Total Number ofRespondents) The use of dogs to detect drugs at schools may increase over the next few years. According to Ronald Stephens, Executive Director, National School Safety Center,“ If we’re going to require kids to attend school, then we ought to be required to provide safe schools, and canine searches are an important part of doing that.” Some membersofthe education community andcivil liberty advocates are concerned that the use of canine searches on school campusesis an intrusion in a place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, the courts have generally agreed that the use of dogs to sniff objects (as opposed to people) is not a search within themeaning of the Fourth Amendmentand thus requires no heightenedlevel of suspicion. Training Requirements for School District Police and Non-Sworn Security Officers The “gold standard” for police officers training is developed and administered by Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST). Municipal police in California are trained using POST standards. Key training elements include 17 standardized pass/fail examinations coveringall aspects of criminal law and a firearm proficiency test. All school police officers hired after July 1, 1999, must complete the POST accredited course of instruction (California Penal Code, Section 832.3) before exercising the powersof an officer. Schooldistrict police officers hired before July 1, 1999, are required to complete the POST course work by July 1, 2002. Asa result, schooldistrict police officers will meet the same training and course standards requiredofall municipal police officers. In contrast, the nearly 13,000 non-sworn security personnel hired by California schooldistricts must meet a different training standard requirement. Non-sworn security personnel who work more than 20 hours per week on security-related duties are required to complete 24 hours of security and safety training developed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, by July 1, 2000 (California Business and Professions Code California Research Bureau, California State Library 25 Section 7583.45). This course work:is offered through most California community college districts. About half of the non-sworn security personnel in schooldistricts are either employed part-time (less than 20 hours per week), or are volunteers or employees that provide some school day security or yard supervision in addition to their teaching and administrative duties. They are not required by law to receive security and safety training. Manyofthe smaller school districts, and someofthe larger districts, do not provide their non-sworn schoolsecurity personnel with any training at all. Many of these personnel are school faculty or staff who work for the school but provide security on a part-timebasis. Chart16 — Non-Sworn Security Personnel Training by SchoolDistrict 100- : Size: . 90-4 80-"" .22,000+ Students (N=42)* 2 nl .5000-21,989 Students (N=34) Ely i 1,000-4,999 Students (N=35) 2 60+ yo o o ‘ a 999Students or Less (N=46) . S ol” o 3 ~ wo 4: °o = ‘POST: None / ~“‘In-House** a Type of Security Prior Experience *N = NumberofDistricts Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 **Part-time as well as full-time 26 California Research Bureau, California State Library SCHOOL VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS Violence prevention curricula are designed to help school-age youth expand their knowledge of skills that are known to be effective in changing attitudes that contribute to impulsive behavior and violence. Since 1988, nearly $7 billion in public funds have been directed at supporting a wide range of student, teacher, parental and community programsaimedat preventing violence in and around schools. However, much of what is known about violence prevention programsis anecdotal. Only recently, in federal FY 1998/99, has the U.S. Department of Education changed guidelines to improve program accountability. No long-term evaluations have been conducted on the effectiveness of violence prevention curricula in reducing violence and drug abuse among school-age children. “We are wasting money on programsthat have been demonstrated not to work,” contends Delbert Elliott, Director of the University of Colorado Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. The Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act of1994 (see discussion on page 9) in particular has attracted a great deal of attention for its lack of accountability. The program simply “mails out checks” without holding anyone accountable, according to federal “Drug Czar,” General Barry McCaffery in a Los Angeles Times interview. In California, school districts utilize violence prevention curricula including: conflict resolution, peer mediation, life skills training, anger management, “peace building,” “teens-on-target,” and “straight talk about risk” (discussed in more detail below). Although these curricula vary in style and intensity, they all share the goal of reducing violent student behavior and thereby improving the school environment. . Violence prevention curricula are taught in daily to weekly sessions and may includetopics suchasself-control, causes and dynamics of conflict, risk factors for violence, and self-esteem. Teachers or consultants trained in a particular curriculum attempt to reinforce enforce healthy behavioral standards in the school and sometimesin the community. Chart 17 below reports the crime prevention strategies used by California schools. Chart 17 Crime Prevention Strategies Used by California School Districts | | | ./ Grade K-6 O Middle SchoolV/JHS WHigh School Families and Schools Together t Gang Resistance Education and Training * Anger Management Violence Prevention Curriculum * Anti-Bullying Curriculun/Program [|p . 4 *Conflict Resolution = Dress Code (perm Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Percentage of School Districts Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 *Part of Violence Prevention Curricula California Research Bureau, California State Library 27 Mostof the 159 California school districts that responded to the CRB survey use a variety of crime prevention strategies, as shown in Chart 17. Interestingly, high schools report - using significantly fewer of these crime prevention strategies. Very few schooldistricts (and noneofthe largest districts) use all-of these crime and drug prevention strategies. Thosethat.do include: one high school district in Lassen County, one.K-8 district.in Humboldt and Tulare counties, and one K-6 district and one K-8 district in San Diego County. It is unclear why small urban andrural districts employ the broadest range of crime prevention strategies. Whilemany crime prevention programs overlap and evaluation data are inconclusive, districts must chose whatis best for their students. Cost is surely one factor, especiallyiin large schooldistricts with largestudent‘populations. Safe and Drug Free Schools and CommunitiesAct ofJ994is the most commonfunding program for drug prevention in schools, althoughevaluation studies suggest the limited effectiveness of many localprograms.*° This federally. funded-program(discussed on page 9) automatically provides formula grant funds to school districts. Districts spend the funds on a wide range of violence and drug preventionstrategies. Conflict resolution programs(anger management, peer mediation, andlife skills) are the principal violence preventionstrategies used in California schools. Many schooldistricts also. impose.a variety of.dress codes that range from wearing uniforms to:prohibiting- certain dress and clothing items. Noneofthese crime and violence prevention strategies incorporate a direct performance measurementor result-oriented evaluation component that.can demonstrate actual reductions in school violence. Much.of the research that does exist is anecdotal, resulting from student self-assessment surveys.>© According tothe California Safe Schools Assessmentreport, rates of drug and alcohol offenses and battery and assault crimerates in California schools have decreased less than national tates over the last three years. Thusit is difficult to determine if Californiaviolence prevention programs have had any impact on reducing violenceor conflict between students. Recent national evaluations also suggest that many anti-drug programsare ineffective. In particular, the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program appearsto not have reduced drug use among students who completed the curricula, comparedtto those.studentswho do not (see page 29 for discussion of the DARE program). Z FAST This early intervention program is designed for children ages 4 to 14. It attempts to address the urgentsocialproblems ofyouth .violence.andchronic juvenile delinquency by building and enhancing youth relationships withtheir families, peers, teachers, school staff, and other membersofthe community. ‘Thetheory iis that these relationships form a safety net of multifaceted protective factors for ‘young, at-risk children that can help them’ to succeed at home, in school, and in the community. The goalis to help them avoid becoming delinquent, violent, or addicted. 28 California Research Bureau, California State Library Chart 18 Families and Schools Together (FAST) by SchoolDistrict Size and School Type 50- 45- a < OK-6 @MSJHS gHs 4a 40- eo = 35 Z 304 3 a54~ 2 3 20} S is} S10} sh 0-4 © vt ee ORS meses 999 or Less 1,000-4,999 (N=36) 5,000-21,999 22,000+ _ (N=46)* (N=34) (N=42) Student Population Source: California Research Bureau Schoo! Survey, 1999 *N = NumberofDistricts Prevention activities seek to enhance family functioning, reduce alcohol and drug abuse, and decrease the family stress experienced from daily life. The program begins with outreach in which parent-professional partners visit the homesofisolated at-risk parents whoare identified by school personnel. At-risk parents are invited into the program, ten families at atime. The cost per family is approximately $1,200 for 86 hours of service over 30 sessions spanning two years. The cost per schoolto serve about 30 familiesis $36,000 per year. The program is funded in California through the Departmentof Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention. As shownin Chart 18, the numberof families in the program is relatively small. Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.). This brief (9-week) instructional program is taught to primarily to middle and elementary school students by a trained, uniformed law enforcementofficer. The format is similar to DARE. The program teaches students about the impact of crime on its victims and the community; discusses cultural differences; teaches conflict resolution skills (including how to meet basic social needs without joining a gang); and stresses responsibility to the school and the neighborhood. The program endsin a lesson in whichthe students are taught the importance of goal setting. The program is a less structured and intensive relative to other gang resistance programsthatare directed at higher-risk groups. The CRB survey foundthat schooldistricts in California do not utilize this program to any significant degree. Despite its limited use by California schooldistricts, evaluation results of a national survey in 11 sites found that students completing the program had morepro- social attitudes and lower rates of some types of delinquent behavior than did students in California Research Bureau, California State Library 29 comparison groups.”’ Whenused in conjunction with dress code requirementsor restrictions on certain attire, gang resistance.can beeffective. . Chart 19 Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) by School District Size and School Type 50- oo 2 4077 2 @K-6 MSHS mHS B 30- 3 Q = a N None ° x 999 or Less 1,000-4,999° 5,000-21,999 22,000+ =46) (N=36) (N=34) (N=42)* ' School District Population Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 . *N = Number of School Districts Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) This well known program is taught by uniformed law enforcementofficers. It was developed by the Los Angeles PoliceDepartment‘in 1983, and has:since spread nationwide. Its core curriculum focuses on teaching pupils the skills needed to recognize and resist social pressures to use drugs. It contains lessons about drugsand their consequences, decision-makingskills, self-esteem, and alternatives to drugs. Teaching techniques include lectures, group discussions, question—and-answersessions, audiovisual materials, workbook exercises, and role-playing. In California, as shown i n Chart 20, DARE:Is‘mainly Populariin:elementary schools, where it is taughtin half of California’s ‘schooldistricts. 30 California Research Bureau, California State Library Chart 20 Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) by School District Size and Type of School 100 90 80- 70 60 50 40 30 20 LiK-6 El MS/JHS @HSs % o f S c h o o l Di st ri ct s 999 orless 1,000-4,999 5,000-21,999 22,000+ (N=46)* (N=36) (N=34) (N=41) School District Population Source: Califomia Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 *N = NumberofDistricts The DARE programs have come under muchscrutiny recently. Many DARE program evaluations conducted across the country have not found that the program has much success in reducing drug use among youth.°® Researchers conclude in a U.S. Department of Justice report that the DARE core curriculum will not reduce substance use among students. The report recommendsthat any further reliance on DARE as a drug prevention strategy should be viewed as a part of a more comprehensive program using social learning and life learning skills.*? Since 1991, the U.S. Departmentof Justice has funded over $4 billion for local drug prevention programs. Yet too many schooldistricts use ineffective drug prevention programs, according to recent evaluations,*” Conflict Resolution Programs “Conflict resolution” is the cornerstone of violence prevention curricula. Conflict resolution programsare used extensively in California’s 50 largest schooldistricts. _ However very few high schools in small districts, and less than 40 percent of high schools in medium-sized districts, offer conflict resolution programs (see Chart 21 below). Small school district administrators interviewed for this survey indicate that they do not use conflict resolution and violence prevention programs because they lack the resources and do not have the grant writing expertise to secure program grants. The programs teach communication skills and creative thinking to help students to prevent, manage, and peacefully resolve conflicts. The underling premise is that conflict is a normal, natural phenomenon. Conflict resolution processes include negotiation (between two parties without a facilitator), mediation (involving a third-party process facilitator), and consensusdecision-making(facilitated group problem solving). All three curricula are designed for ail levels of K-12 school. California Research Bureau, California State Library 31 Chart 21 Violence Prevention: Conflict Resolution Programs by School District Size and School Type 100 5 7— OK-6 EIMS/JHS mHS » 80+ | Za| = 5 604 3 504 33g 404 S 30+ se = e204 10+ ‘999 or Less '1,000-4,999 ~~ §,000-21,999 22,000+ (N=45)* (N=33) (N=33) (N=42) Student Population Source: California. Research Bureau School Survey,.1999 . ol . ’ *N = NumberofDistricts A recent survey conducted by the California State Auditor foundthat less than half of the middle schools and high schools that use conflictresolutionprogramstrain their faculty and staff and only a.fraction of schools train parents. The same study found thatin schools where faculty andstaffreceive conflict resolution training, schoolprincipals believe their schools are better preparedto handle conflict than in schools where faculty and staff are nottrained.“! Research on the effectiveness of conflict resolution programs within schools has been ongoing since the 1970s. Mostofit has focusedon mediations programs(involving a third-party process facilitator), which are more common. Very few studies, however, have used a control group to compare outcomeswith students not enrolled in conflict resolution programs. The most successful findings are from a 1995 national evaluation, which found that students trained in conflict resolution“using mediation werebetter able tomanage a controlled conflict without resorting to physical confrontation than students who did not receive the training.” In 1995, 70 percentof the California school districts using conflict resolution curricula reported that incidences of suspension were reducedandthatreferrals to principals decreased 42 percent.” In general, California schooldistricts do not evaluate the effectiveness oftheir conflict resolution programs. They have not constructed specific outcome measurementstied to the performanceofthe students in the program,noris there follow-up research ofthe students who have successfully completed the program. Thusthere is no program-related data by which to compareschools that use conflict resolution curricula, against those that do not, nor is there data to compare with statewide school crimerates such as battery and assault on campus. 32 California Research Bureau, California State Library Peer Mediation Programs In this form of conflict resolution, students involved in a conflict agree to have a trained peer mediator help them resolve their dispute. Peer mediators are fellow students trained in special mediation skills including problem solving,active listening, communicating, identifying points of agreement, and maintaining confidentiality and a non-judgmental stance. About 10,000 schools and community groupsin the U.S. are using peer mediation, according to Margery Baker, executive director of the National Institute for Dispute Resolution. Trained peer mediators help youth to examinetheir disagreement and develop a mutually acceptablesolution. The process is designed to be democratic and void of blame. Young people benefit from an opportunity to contribute to positive solutions in their school environment while learning skills to resolve conflict in their own lives. Teensare often willing to learn from their peers. Sixty-one percent of 11-17 year olds would trust advice from someone whohadactually experienced a problem, such as a former drug addict, a gang memberor a teen mother, according Carole Close, who operates a peer mediation center for the Cleveland SchoolDistrict in Ohio.“* However, muchof the research on peer mediation is anecdotal. Few studies examinethe rates of suspension, fights or confrontational incidents in schools to see if they decrease with the program. Life Skills Training This three-year primary prevention program targets 7", 8"and 9% grade students to discourage the use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana. The curriculum includes 15 lessons over a year period taught in school by regular classroom teachers, with booster sessions provided in the second year (ten classes) and third year (five classes). Three basic program components include: e Personal self-management (decision-making and problem-solving, self-control skills for coping with anxiety and self-improvementskills); e Social skills enhancement (communication and general social skills); and e Drug-related information designed to improve knowledge and affect attitudes about drug use and peer pressure. Life skills training has been effective at reducing alcohol, cigarette, and marijuana use among youngpeople in the short term but not the long term. Research findsthat the effects of decreased student tobacco and alcohol use are not sustained through the end of high school.” Peace Building Programs This program integrates conflict resolution into the curricula and daily managementof the classroom,using instructional methods of cooperative learning and “academic controversy.” The Educators for Social Responsibility curriculum, Making Choices about Conflict, Security, and Peacemaking, showsteachers how to integrate conflict resolution California Research Bureau, California State Library 33 into the curriculum, classroom management, and discipline practices. It emphasizes opportunities to practice cooperation, appreciation of diversity, and caring and effective communication. Studies on the program’s effectiveness found that discipline problems requiringteacher management decreased by approximately 80percent, and referrals to the principal were reducedto zero.“0 Anger Management Programs The courses are designed forteachers, students, and parents.to help them deal with their anger.andto reinforce positivelife skills, usually in a shared environment. Mostschool-.. based anger management curricula draw uponseveraltheories aboutsocial. learning and cognitive behavior. Theyutilize.a variety of mechanisms toteach behavioralchange. including tutored videoinstruction, observation, guided practice and successful experience, role-playing, modeling, and performancefeedback. Students have the opportunityto self- assesstheir abilities to managetheir anger. It usually takes twofull days of training for teacherstobecomeclassroom facilitators. Someskill courses last two weeks, others as long as one semester. Bullying Prevention Programs An estimated nine out of ten junior high and high school studentspave witnessed bullying, and eight out of ten have been bullied during their school careers."” Bullying programs seek to increase awarenessofthe problem, to achieve active involvement.on-thepart.of teachers and parents, to develop clear rules against bullying behavior, and to provide support and protection for the victims of bullying. Key elements .include:conflict resolutiontraining for staffmembers,social skills building for victims,positive leadership skills training for bullies, intervention techniquesfor:bystanders, and the presence of parentalsupport. Intervention models canbe used.on.a school-wide classroom,orat the. individual level. In Bergen, Norway,thefrequency of bullying/victim problems decreased by more than 50 percent twoyears after the program began. Theseresults applied toboth boys andgirls and to students acrossall the gradesstudied. Recent U.S. research found the same 50 percent reduction in bullying, as well as a reduction in antisocial behavior(theft, vandalism, and truancy), and an improvementin schoolclimate.48 Although bullying occursatall levels of grade school, the CRB school survey finds that California high schools in smaller districts generally do not offer bullying programs (Chart 22). 34 California Research Bureau, California State Library Chart 22 Violence Prevention: Anti-Bullying Programs by School District Size and School Type 100-, 904 : 90 OK-6 GMS/THS BHS - ni| 5 co Se sot |.oO 4 Saot~Dw | S304 = 20-4 10-4 22,000+ 21,999-5,000 4,999-1,000 999 or Less *(N=42) (N=33) (N=36) (N=46) Student Population Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 *N = NumberofDistricts Dress Codes Gang-related apparel has been a concern for many years. In 1993, the Legislature enacted a law giving school boards the authority to adopt reasonable dress code regulations (Education Code, Section 35183). Since then, school dress codes targeting gangattire have been challenged in courts under the First Amendment, but school districts have prevailed. The California School Boards Association recommendsa “reasonable dress code” regulation as the first step for schools that wish to develop a dress code. Key elements include securing parental support at the beginningofthe process, protecting religious expression, selecting either a voluntary or mandatory uniform policy with an “opt out” provision, providing an assistance plan for poor students, and treating uniformsas part of an overall safety program. In the Long Beach SchoolDistrict, the crime rate in middle schools dropped by 36 percent between 1993 and 1995 after the introduction of the dress code. The CRB survey found that dress codes, particularly anti-gang-color dress codes, are required in most large California schooldistricts, as shown in Chart 23. High schools in small school districts are the least likely to enforce a dress code requirement. California Research Bureau, California State Library 35 Chart 23 . Dress Code Requirements* ‘by School District Size and School Type 100 - EK6 f1MS/JHS @HS % o f S c h o o l Di st ri ct s 999:0r- Less (N=46)** Student Population *Includes Uniform Dress Codes and Restrictive Dress Source: California Research Bureau School Survey, 1999 **N = NumberofDistricts 36 California Research Bureau, California State Library LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE OPTIONS While not necessarily the recommendation of the California Research Bureau, the author or the Legislative members requesting this report, the following optionsreflect the broad range of research on the subject. Violence Prevention Planning and Curricula Schooldistricts in California generally respond to school violence in two distinct ways. The most common approachis through violence prevention curricula whereby individual one-on-one violence and aggressive behavioris addressed through counseling,life skills building, peer mediation and conflict resolution. The second approach is to makeit physically difficult for terrorist acts to occur on school campuses by using a combination of highly visible security personnel along with detection technologies such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras, and more conventional security such as canine searches, locks, and metal bars. Although school safety plans are required by state law (Education Code Section 35294 et al.), that requirement expires on January 1, 2000. The Legislature has passedlegislation (SB 334) to extend the requirement. Veryfew schoolsafety plans address how to respond to a random actofterrorist violence (see pages 8 and 15). Many school safety plans currently address only the limited range of issues required by state law (reporting school crime, emergency disaster procedures, child abuse reporting, schoolstaff notification of student expulsion, sexual harassmentpolicy and dress code). Yet given recent horrifying examples, such as Littleton, schools probably need to better meet public concerns. e The Legislature could require that school safety and security plans includecrisis planning and management. Again, such proposals are currently under consideration. e Training for a terrorist action might also be beneficial. For example, Travis Unified School District recently conducted such an exercise with the participation of the Air Force. Berkeley High School conducted a similar exercise with local police,fire, and paramedic personnel. The CRB school surveyfinds that a significant numberofschooldistricts are using violence prevention programming andcurricula as a proactive, risk reduction approach to schoolviolence (see pages 27 and 28). e Schools need to carefully consider their security needs, build on data drawn from students and the community, and incorporate those needsinto a school safety plan that specifies programs and expected outcomes(see page 7). Not all schooldistricts are meeting these basic requirements for effective violence prevention. Current law and legislative proposals do not envision that school safety plans include all of these components, for example a security risk assessment and improved data collection and analysis. California Research Bureau, California State Library , 37 Currently schooldistricts rely on a variety of curricula and programs,in part driven by federal and state funding sources. Evaluation research suggests wide variations in program effectiveness (see pages 28, 31, and 32).. The Legislature could require districts to take this research into account when formulating schoolplans and deciding on schoolsafety programs. The Department of Education could compile and disseminate research findings. There is some evidencethateffective school violence prevention-curricula include students in theplanning and. implementation process (see:page33). TheLegislature | could require schooldistricts to include students in planning and implementation. School safetyis:in part aquestion of perception.(see pages 5:and 6). In order to develop.a community.consensus and decrease‘security concerns,schools could survey parents.and students.about their perceptions andimprove:communication aboutsafety. policies. This information could be used to revise school safety plans. The Department of Education and the Departmentof Justice could partner to develop a model survey-assessment form. The Legislature could:create.a:special funding mechanism. ; " SoG The Legislature could authorize a one-time funding measure so that a school safety assessment could be:conducted by a:qualified security expert for everyschool in the state. The infusionof expert analysis mightimprove the implementation of school safety plans and-enable a cost-effective selection of programs.and security technologies. School safetymeasures might includethe use:oftelephones in-each classroom, cell phones for each school, breathalyzers in each high school, and surveillance cameras in schoolareas that are security risks (see page 7). Schools could streamline existing safety procedures into one manual or document. This:manual could be used to inform volunteers and schoolstaff. . Involvementofthe Judiciary According to:CRB interviews, somejudges believe that.their expertise and legal responsibilityfor decisions involving at-risk children and theirfamilies could.be better integrated into schoolviolence prevention policy. At-risk students and their families interact with the courts, and‘that information could to be-shared. with schools (see:page 15). Judges could offer important insight and ideas towards the development of school safety plans. Perhaps the Legislature could formally require judicial participation in the planning process. The Attorney General recently formed a.School Violence Prevention Task Force to create a modelstate school safetyand security plan. Members of the Task Force include the Attorney General, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Legislative members from the Assembly and Senate. The Judiciary Council could request the appointmentofa liaison to the Attorney General’s Task Force. 38 California Research Bureau, California State Library e The Administration could work with courts to initiate a judicial program in schools whereby judges could take sabbaticals to participate in school mentoring and other educational services that would improve campussafety and reduce youth crime, violence, and drug abuse. Data In California, a numberofstate and county agencies including thejuvenile andfamily courts and child welfare systems have separate data collection systems and overlapping responsibilities in matters involving school-age children. These systemsare not coordinated to avoid duplication noris the information used to improve violence prevention services for the individual child (see page 15). e The Administration could direct the appropriate state agencies to partner with county and schoolofficials to develop a plan to better collect and integrate data to serve these at-risk students. As a result of confidentiality laws, schools generally do not know ifa child transferring or entering a schoolfor thefirst time has been abusedoris at-risk due tofamily problems. Troubled families and their children might be involvedin the juvenile court, dependencyhearings,civil cases (divorce) and criminal cases (domestic violence). Each court proceeding can take placein isolation from the others, inhibiting the courts (and schools) from recognizing and seeking to prevent potential serious problems. e The courts and county child welfare services could jointly plan and develop family- centered data systems with the goal of evaluating servicesto be better directed to these troubled families. This effort may require somestate funding and direction. The information couldbe shared with schoolofficials so that violence prevention services could be targeted for at-risk youth in school. Better School Crime Prevention Program Evaluations Many school-basedviolence prevention programs lack evaluation or outcome data. For example, the state has funded pilot programsin the past yet not documented outcometo learn what worked and what did not. Recent studies suggest that widely used programs, for example DARE,are not effective in reducing drug use, a primary contributor to juvenile violence (see page 31). An empirical database could offer a better gauge of what works, or does not work, in curbing school violence and drug-use. e The Legislature could require the appointment of an expert task force that would formulate approachesto directly evaluate the performance of programs used by school districts to reduce violence and crime. Task force members might include academic specialists, program administrators, school district officials, and representatives of the Department of Education. The goal of the task force would beto establish a model evaluation process, including data-oriented audits, self-reporting surveys, and tracking systems to assess student and school outcomes. Evaluations would answer the question, “What changed becauseof the intervention?” The information would be California Research Bureau, California State Library 39 shared with schooldistricts so they could more cost-effectively spend their limited resources (see page 32). Grant Funding for Schoo! Districts District administrators in small schooldistricts interviewedfor this survey indicate that they do not use conflict resolution and violence prevention programs because they lack the resources and do not have the grant writingexpertise to secure programgrants. For example, the Safe and DrugFree Schools Act.is a federal formula grantfundthathas attracted a great dealofattention for its lackof outcome--based.accountability. Some.ofthe smallest schooldistricts in the. state receiveJess than.a $100 annually from.this fund (see page 9). There are also a numberof demonstrationgrant funds available to-schooldistricts for violence prevention. Many smaller schooldistricts (with a student population of 5,000 or less) do not have the resources orthe ability tomatch federal and state grant.funding for violence and crime prevention programs. Theshortfall isparticularly:severe for high schools in small districts, many of which lack the range of violence prevention programs offered in larger schooldistricts (see Chart 17, page 27). e TheLegislature and theGovernor could require the‘Department ofEducation.and the . Office of CriminalJustice Planningtooffer grant writing assistance to smaller school: districts so.as to acquire a fair share of discretionary grant funds. e Small schooldistricts may need financial assistance to meet federal.requirements for matching funds for school safety grant programs. The Legislature could create a “challenge grant” program to fund grant matches. for smaller and at-risk school districts (see pages 9 and10). e The Department of Educationcould evaluate the security needs of small districts and recommenda targeted funding program ‘to the Legislature. Crisis Management The CRB studyfindsthat.many districts do not have.a crisis managementplan (see page 15). Crisis response is an important component.of violence preventionplanning. Ata minimum,a crisis managementplan should include a contingencyplan to intervene during a crisis and to respondin the aftermath.of atragedy. Having a school.response team that. knows whatto do during a crisis is a critical componentofthe crisis managementplan. e Upgrading the training of non-security school personnel is one mechanism to improve crisis response. Basic violence preventioncurricula and violence preventiontraining for staff and volunteers are currently notrequired.as components of a school safety plan, but could be. e Another issue revolves aroundtraining for a crisis situation. One option mightbeto stage a mockcrisis exercise when students are not in school. Travis and Berkeley Unified School Districts, for example, undertook such an exercise recently during the summerbreak. 40 California Research Bureau, California State Library e The Legislature could require each school principal to appoint a team of schoolstaff, law enforcementofficials, and health care officials to serve as a crisis response team at - the beginning of each school year. e Schooldistrict police officers or municipal police officers could train membersofthe response team on how to respondto a crisis (violent incidents, suicides and natural disasters) as an organized unit. A communication system among schoolstaff, police, hospitals, mental health professionals, parents, and elected officials could support the crisis response teams. School Police and StaffSecurity Training and Qualifications A substantial numberof the estimated 13,000 non-sworn security personnel who provide part-time security at K-12 school campuses are not requiredto be trained (see pages 25 and 26). By July 2002,all school district police will have completed a POSTtraining course that meets the standards currently required of municipal police officers. Non-sworn security personnel who workover 20 hours a week will meet training requirements established by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Many of these personnelare faculty membersand other school employees whose primary jobis to teach and perform other school-related work. Others are part-time employees employed or contracted for security purposes. Their preparedness to respondto a potentially violent event is arguably inadequate. e The Legislature could require the Department of Education and the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Securities and Investigations to develop minimum training requirements for part-time (under 20 hours) school security, school personnel, and volunteers. School districts or municipal police officers could offer the training several times a year. Schooldistricts that employ municipal police officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant program could face a loss of funding after 2001 (see page 21). This would have a major impact on howsecurity is provided on California school districts campuses. e IfCongress does not authorize continued funding of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Legislature and the Administration could consider establishing a state grant program to fully or partially fund municipalpolice officers hired under the aforementioned act. Priority funding could be given to schoolsdistricts that previously employed municipalpolice officers. California Research Bureau, California State Library 4] 42 California Research Bureau, California State Library APPENDIX A: SCHOOL SAFETY AND SECURITY SURVEY California Research Bureau, California State Library 43 44 California Research Bureau, California State Library School Safety and Security Survey Goals e Understand the priorities whichschooldistricts place on security. e Assess the security resources of schooldistricts, including the numberandtype of personnel, e Identify the type and numberof crime prevention strategies used by schooldistricts. Methodology and Content The developmentof the survey involved a numberofsteps, including clarifying research goals, defining terminology, and designing and constructing the survey instrument. Meetings were held with statewide school safety administrators and professional organizations to seek their input in refining the survey and their cooperation in distributing it. The survey instrument wassent to all school district superintendents in a representative sample of California schooldistricts. Finally, on-site follow-up interviews and telephone calls were conducted with school district administrators andline staff to clarify responses and to seek additional information. In general, the survey respondents were askedto do the following: e Describe the school district’s level of compliance in developmentof safe school plans, including participation of parents, community groups and students. e Indicate the kinds of crime prevention programsand strategies used in the district and in individual schools. e List the numberof school district police, municipal police, contract security and/or in- house security providing security on school district campuses. e Identify the types of equipment schooldistrict police carry on schooldistrict campuses. e Answera series of formatted questions relating to workload, staffing, and training of schooldistrict police and security personnel. Specify the amount and percentage of schooldistrict budgets dedicated to security. Surveys were sent out to a statewide sample of 240 school districts. The schooldistricts in the sample were divided into four groups: the 50 largest districts and three equal groups based ondistrict size: e The 50 largest school districts with a student population of more than 22,000. e Schooldistricts with a student population of 5,000 to 21,999. e Schooldistricts with a student population of 1,000 to 4,999. e Schooldistricts with a student population of 1,000 orless. Surveys were returned by 158 of the 240 school districts in the sample (representing 43 percent of the state’s K-12 student population, or 2,705,400 out of 5,710,075 students). Forty-two of the 50 largest school districts representing 91 percent of the student population of those districts responded to the survey. Fifteen percent of the schooldistricts California Research Bureau, California State Library 45 with 5,000 - 21,999 students responded,12 percent of the schooldistricts with 1,000- 4,999 students responded, and only 10 percent of the smallest schooldistricts responded. 46 California Research Bureau, California State Library School Safety and Security Survey Part] School Safety Programs 1. Has each schoolin yourdistrict completed their Comprehensive School Safety Plan, as required by law (Chapter 737, Statutes of 1997) Yes (Please indicate the number of schools) No (Please indicate the numberof schools) 1A. If yes, please indicate below the number and grade-level of schools in your district that have evaluated and amendedtheir safety plans? (If evaluations have been completed, please return copies with this survey.) K-6 JHS HS 2. Please indicate which of the following crime/violence prevention strategies schools in your district use and the grade-level of the school where the program occurs (K-6 grade, junior high/middle school- including grades 7 and 8" or grades 7” through 9": and high school).” Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) K-6___JHS_HS Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) K-6JHS_HS| Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) K-6_JHSHS| Families and Schools Together (F.A.S.T.) K-6_ JHS_HS| Violence prevention curricula K-6__JHS_HS| School normsagainst violence, bullying, and aggression K-6_JHSHS. Dress code K-6JHS._HS Personal and social skills training for students: K-6JHS._HS Anger management K-6___JHS___HS _____Peace building K-6__JHS_HS Social problem solving K-6__JHS_HS. Conflict resolution/management K-6 JHSHS Social resistance(i.e. just say no,etc.) K-6___JHSHS. Other, please describe. K-6___JHS___HS 3, Do crime/violence prevention strategies used by schools in yourdistrict include participation from parents, community groupsorstudents in the decision-making process? Yes____ (If yes, please indicate below the number and grade-level school where these groupsparticipated.) “For schooldistricts that do not have middle or junior high schools, please use the K-6 elementary and high school categories. California Research Bureau, California State Library 47 Part II Parents K-6___JHSHS Community Groups K-6___JHS___HS Students K-6 JHSHS No If no, why not? SchoolSafety Services Peace Officer Personnel . 1. Please indicate the numberof schooldistrict employed police officers or contractedpolice officers? Numberofdistrict employed police officers Number of:non-district (Municipal Police/County Sheritl) police officers contracted:‘to workiin the school district Do yourdistrictpolice officers participate in the Peace Officers Standards and 2. Training (POST)program (District officers have full academy training and the districtreceives reimbursement from P.O.S.T)? Yes No 3. Dothe district police officers carry any of the following equipment? Firearm ‘Chemical spray (Mace, pepper,etc.) Baton (Nightstick) ‘Handcuffs 4. Doyourdistrictpolice officers wear distinctive uniforms? Yes No 5. Please indicate the hours of operation for your district police officers. 24 hours a day, 5 days per week Daytime only © “After hours” only On campusduring the school day only 48 California Research Bureau, California State Library 6. Whoin your schooldistrict do police officers report to? Schooldistrict police chief Central office administrator (Asst. Supt., Director, Supt., etc.) Site administrator (e.g. Principal) Site administrator’s designee Other (Please identify who) 7. Do your district police officers operate district ownedpolice vehicles with red lights, sirens, etc.? Yes No 8. Please indicate which of the following services are performed by yourdistrict police officers? Makearrests Conduct investigations Submit investigations to the county district attorney for prosecution Obtain search warrants, or arrest warrants Submit investigations to the juvenile court for prosecution Unlock doors - Respond to alarms B. Non-Sworn Security Personnel 1. Please indicate the numberof in-house or proprietary campus supervisors, proctors, noon duty assistants, and/or security personnel employedbythedistrict to provide security? 2. Please indicate the numberof contract security personnel (Non district employees) employed by your school district? 3. Please indicate the hours of operation for your security personnel. 24 hours a day, 5 days per week Daytimeonly “After hours” only On campus during the school day only 4, Please indicate the training provided for your security personnellisted in #1 above None . POSTTraining (numberof hours) California Research Bureau, California State Library 49 10. In-house,in service only (please indicate the type and length of training) — Prior law enforcement/security training (please indicate the type and length of training) Dothe security personnel in your schooldistrict carry any of the following equipment? Firearm Chemical spray (Mace, pepper,etc) Baton (Night stick) Handcuffs A Please indicate if the security personnel in your schooldistrict wear a distinctive uniform? None T-shirt/wind breaker Police/sheriff type uniform Who in your schooldistrict do security personnel report to? District police chief Central office administrator (Asst. Supt., Director, Supt., etc.) Site administrator (e.g. Principal) Site administrator’s designee Other(Please identify who)E L Do yourdistrict security personnel operate district owned vehicles with distinctive markings, includingelectric carts, pickups, etc.? Yes No Does your schooldistrict use community volunteers to assist your security or police personnel to monitor school campuses? Yes (Please indicate the time of day) O Zz Are your schooldistrict security personnel permitted to do any of the following tasks? Search students in the absence of a certified administrator Arrest persons and summonpolice 50 California Research Bureau, California State Library 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Interview students suspected of committing a crimeor rule violation Whatis your schooldistrict’s annual safety services budget (Please include personnel, equipment, and administrative costs)? What percentage of your annual schooldistrict budget is dedicated to safety/security services? Does your schooldistrict use any of the following equipment? Walk through metal detectors Hand held metal detectors Surveillance cameras “Panic” alarms None of the above Doesyour schooldistrict use metal detectors for any of the following purposes? To check students entering campus in the beginning of the school day. To check students entering campusafter lunch. To check students and other persons attending school-related events. Other uses. Please explain. Does your school district conduct random searches for drugs, alcohol or weapons? Yes No Does your schooldistrict use dogs to detect drugs? Yes No — 7 Does your schooldistrict use video surveillance cameras in any of the following areas or locations? School buses Maintenance yards Campusentrances and exits Hallways Stairwells Libraries Parking lots Cafeteria California Research Bureau, Califomia State Library 5 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Campus quadareas High risk areas (Areas of poorlighting, swimming pools, where moneyis kept, labs) Other areas (please specify) Whois responsible for monitoring your schooldistrict video surveillance system? Personnel employed by the school district Non-district contract personnel (Private patrol operators etc.) Municipal/county police personnel Community volunteers Doesa designated person on a regular, current action basis regularly review the videotapes? Yes No Are the videotapes only reviewed after an incident occurs? Yes No Howeffective are your school district’s safety measures? Very effective-our schooldistrict is safe with very few incidents. Effective-our schooldistrict is safe with incidents occurring.a few times a Week. Ineffective-our school district is unsafe with incidents occurring on a frequent basis. Please provide any additional comments below. 52 California Research Bureau, California State Library ENDNOTES 'l. G. Abbott, Preface to The Child and the State, 1938,p.vii. * Alexander Volokh and Lisa Snell, School Violence Prevention: Strategies to Keep Schools Safe, Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 234, October 1997. >Hanna Rosin and Claudia Deane, “Teens Feel the Threat of School Violence,” The Washington Post, National Weekly Edition, May 3, 1999, p. 34. “1998 Report Card on the Ethics ofAmerican Youth: Survey Data on Youth Violence, Josephson Institute of Ethics, May 1999, °N. Brener,et al., “Recent Trends in Violence-Related Behaviors Among High School Students in the United States,” Journal ofAmerican Medical Association, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, August 1999, Vol. 282, pp. 440-446. Ronald Stephens, Executive Director, National School Safety Center’s Report on School Associated Violent Deaths, National School Safety Center, Ventura, Califomia, June 11, 1999. ’Mary Hatwood, and Lee Powel, Preventing Violence in School, Urban Education Journal, 1995, http://www.columbia.edu/. ‘U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics, School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, The Department, 1989 and 1995. °P. Kaufman,et al., Indicators ofSchool Crime and Safety, NCES 98-251/NCJ 172215, U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, Washington, D.C.: 1998. ‘Sheila Heavinside, et al., Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-97, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, D.C., 1998. MKids These Days, 1999: What Americans Really Think About the Next Generation,” The Public Agenda, New York, 1999, http://(www.publicagenda.org/. «The Secret Life of Teens,” Newsweek, May 10, 1999. Mindy Sink,“Shootings Intensify Interest in Home Schooling,” New York Times, August 11, 1999, p. A-18. First Annual Report on School Safety, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., October 1998. >John Cloud, “What Can Schools Do?,” TIME, May 3, 1999,pp. 38-40. 'SBrigid Schulte, “After Littleton, Montgomery Schools Rethink Safety,” Washington Post, July 12, 1999. ‘Kenneth S. Trump,“Crisis in the Classroom: Can Your Schools’ Security Pass the Exam?,” Updating (the newsletter of the National School Board Association’s National Education Policy Network), Vol. 29, No.3, June/July 1998. "bid, Wendy Schwartz, “An Overview to Reduce School Violence,” ERIC, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, No. 115, October 1996, http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/. ©Nid the Law Cause Columbine?, Center for Crime Victims Rights, Remedies and Resources, University of New Haven,paper presented to the Federalist Society, Washington, D.C., August 13, 1999. *'Donald Lyman, “DARE Does Not Work,” Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, August 1999, Vol. 67: pp. 590-593. 2Telephoneinterview with Principal Kelaurie Travis, Greenpoint SchoolDistrict, in Humboldt County,California, May 1999. California Department of Justice, Crime and Violence Prevention Center, and Department of Education, Safe Schools and Violence Prevention Office, Sample Survey ofSchool Districts That Utilize Partnerships To Prevent Crime and Violence, February 1999. **Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention and Managementof Conflict and Crimein the Schools, Final Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Prevention and Management ofConflict and Crime in the Schools: To Evelle Younger, Attorney, General; Wilson Riles, State Superintendent ofPublic Instruction, Sacramento, 1975. >Safe Campus: The Educator's Crime Prevention Journal, California DepartmentofJustice, 1983, Vol. 1. *°California Department of Education, Understanding and Reporting School Crime,A Report ofthe Califernia Safe Schools Assessment, Sacramento, The Department, 1997. "The Federalist Society For Law andPublic Policy, “Did the Law Cause Columbine,?” A Presentation before the National Press Club, Washington D. C., August 13, 1999. *Michael McCormick,etal., “Citizens Urged to Collaborate, Act Against Violence,” School Safety, National School Safety Center, Ventura, California, Spring 1998, p. 4. 2°Walt Wiley, “Cop Plan for Schools Advances,” Sacramento Bee, July 20, 1999, p. B-2. >°Marcus Nieto, The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act Today, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, April 1995;pp: 4-6. California Research Bureau, California State Library 53 Marcus Nieto, Public Video Surveillance: Is It An Effective Crime Prevention Tool?, California Research Bureau, California State Library, Sacramento, June 1997, pp. 28-30. Ibid. *’Telephone interview, Klye Koski, Operations Director, Huntsville City Schools, Huntsville, Alabama, May 1999. “Creating Safe and Drug Free Schools: An Action Guide, Safe and Diug.Free Schools, California Department of Education, September 1996,http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDES/actguid/searches.bun. RP. Clayton, A. Cattarello, and B. Johnson, “TheEffectiveness ofDrug AbuseEducation (Project DARE):Five-year Follow-up Results,” Preventive Medicine, 1996 Vol. 25, pp.307-318. *6Conflict Resolution/Peer Mediation (CR/PM) Research’Project,¢ 0 ‘Stephen W. Smith, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1997, http://www.coe.1fl:edu/CRPM/CRPMhome.html. . 3"Finn-Aage Esbensen and D. W. Osgood, “GangResistance Educationand Training (GREAT): Results from the ‘National Evaluation,” Journal of?Research in Crime and Delinquency, May,.1999,Vol. 36,No.2; pp. 194-225 8D, Rosenbaum,et.al., “Cops in the classroom: A‘Longitudinal ‘Evaluation ofDrug.AbuseResistance Education(DARE),” Journal ofResearchin Crime.andDelinquency, 1994, Vol. 3 Lp.3231 Denise Gottfredson, PreventingCrime: What Works, WhatDoesn't, What’s Promising,.A Reportto the United States Congress, # 165366, National Institute of.Justice, ‘Washington, DC., February 1997,pp. 5-36. Sherry Posnick-Goodwin, Researchers Question Value of DARE’s Scare Tactic,‘California Educator, April 1997, “'California. California State Auditor, School Safety: Comprehensive ResolutionProgramsHelp Prepare Schoolsfor Conflict, #99107, August 1999. “2DJohnson, and’R. Johnson, “The Impact of Peer Mediation Trainingon the‘Managementof School and HomeConflict,” American Education Research Journal, 1995, Vol.32; No. 4; pp-829=844, “Conflict Resolution EffectsonBehavior, National Institute for Dispute’Resolution, Washington, DC, 1998. “Kathleen Vail, Give Peace a Chance: Peer Mediatorsin Cleveland Choose Nonviolence, ‘The National AttorneysGeneral/National School BoardAssociation, ‘Tune:1999,‘http:/iyww.keepschoolssafe.org/. “G. J. Botvin,et al., “Long-term Follow-up Results of, a RandomizedDrug AbusePrevention Trial in a White Middle-class Population,” Journal ofthe American MedicalAssociation, 1995,‘Vol. 273 , pp. 1106- 1112.00 “David Johnson and Roger Johnson, “Teaching Students To’Be Peacemakers: ‘Results ofFive Years of Research,” Peace and Conflict: Journal ofPeace Psychology, 1995, Vol. 1, No. 4, p. 424. “"J. Hoover, R. Oliver, and R. Hazler, “Bullying:Perceptions ofAdolescent Victims jin Midwestern USA,” School Psychology International, 1992, Vol. 13 » pp. 5-6. “Delbert Elliott and William Woodward, Blueprints“for:Violence Prevention, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado, 1999. “°J. Michael Kennedy, “A Fashion Statement with Real Meaning,” Los Angeles Times, August 19, 1995,p. Metropolitan. 34 California Research Bureau, California State Library EXHIBIT 4 SENATE BILL No. 822 Introduced by Senator Dills February 23, 1995 An act to amend Sections 628.1, 628.2, 628.4, 628.5, and 628.6 of the Penal Code, relating to school crimes, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 822, as introduced, Dills. School crime reporting program. (1) Existing law requires the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice and a representative selection of school districts, to develop a standard school crime reporting form, by June 30, 1985, for use by all school districts throughout the state. The form is required to include, among other things, the total number of pupils enrolled in the school as ofNovember 15 and April 15. This bill would require that form to be developed by June 30, 1995, and would include county offices of education within those provisions. The bill would modify the form to report the total number of pupils enrolled in a_ school- or county-operated program on October 15, as reported in the California Basic Education Data System. . (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Education to prepare and supply school crime reporting forms to local educational agencies, and requires those agencies to submit the completed reports to the department. This bill would authorize the department to designate a person or entity to prepare, supply, and receive those reports, and to perform specified related duties. 99 SB 822 —2— (3) Existing law requires the department to identify criteria for validating the incidents of crime reported, and requires validation criteria to be established for each crime description, including, among other things, assault, unlawful fighting, and chemical substanceoffenses. This bill instead would require the department to identify criteria for reporting and validating school crimes, would no longer require criteria to be established for assault, unlawful fighting, or chemical substance offense, but would require reporting and validation criteria to be established for, among other things, graffiti and drug and alcohol programs. The bill would makerelated changes. (4) Existing law requires the department, beginning July 1, 1991, to use tested validation criteria in a representative sample of school districts and county offices of education to assess the accuracy of school crime data submitted to it by those agencies. This bill instead would require the department, or its designee, beginning July 1, 1995, to use approved reporting and validation criteria for that purpose. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgencystatute. - Vote: 7/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program:no. The people of the State of California do enactas follows: l SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of 2 the following: 3 (a) There is merit in collecting information that helps 4 schools, school districts, and county offices of education 5 identify the most urgent school safety issues confronting 6 pupils, teachers, administrators, and community 7 members. This information provides an objective basis 8 for planning appropriate prevention and intervention 9 strategies to enhance the safety of school campuses. 10 (b) There is a need for consistent and accurate 11 reporting of incidents of school crime occurring on school 12 campuses and in county-operated education programs. 13. Therefore, the Legislature intends for procedures for 99 m n C T w o O o m a I A U N P W N Y K W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N H R E P P P r r e c o e —_—3— SB 822 reporting school crime to be clarified in statute and regulation. (c) Current statutes relating to the school crime reporting program are inconsistent with input gathered from school crime experts throughout the state. Although program operation has been suspended until July 1, 1995, the components for accurate and consistent reporting must be in place before the program can resume operation. It is the intent of the Legislature to include within those components regulations for program definitions, reporting guidelines, and required supporting documentation. (d) Because regulations and statutes must support sound reporting practices, it 1s important that new regulations be approved in a timely manner in order to support the implementation of a consistent and accurate school crime reporting program. SEC. 2. Section 628.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.1. By June 30, +983 1995, the State Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Justice and a representative selection of school districts and county offices of education which currently compile school crime statistics, shall develop a standard school crime reporting form for use by all school districts and county offices of education throughout the state. No individual shall be identified by name or in any other manner on this reporting form. The form shall define what constitutes the criminal activity required to be reported and shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: (a) Description of the crime. (b) Victim characteristics. (c) Offender Suspect characteristics, if known. (d) Total students number of pupils enrolled atthe on October 15, as reported in the California Basic Education Data System, for the county-operated program, site, or school reporting the crime ea—Nevember—t5—fer—the—first 99 SB $22 4 — D w o n r n n b w h d - - W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N N N N E E E S e e r S B S Y B S W R G A R O H A S S S A I A G R E O H N S S C H I A W N A W N E ] SEC. 3. Section 628.2 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.2. (a) On forms prepared and supplied by the State Department of Education, or its designee, each principal of a school in a school district and each principal or director of a school, program, or camp under the jurisdiction of the county superintendent of schools shall forward a completed report of crimes committed on school or camp grounds at the end of each reporting period to the district superintendent or county superintendent of schools, as the case may be. (b) The district superintendent, or, as appropriate, the county superintendent of schools, shall compile the school data and submit the aggregated data to the State Department of Education, or its designee, not later than February 1 for the reporting period of July 1 through December 31, and not later than August 1 for the reporting period of January 1 through June 30. (c) The superintendent of any school district that maintains a police department pursuant to Section 39670 of the Education Code may direct the chief of police or other administrator of that department to prepare the completed report of crimes for one or more schools in the district, to compile the schoo! data for the district, and to submit .the aggregated data to the State Department of Education, or its designee, in accordance with this section. If the chief of police or other designated administrator completes the report of crimes, the chief of police or other designated administrator shall provide information to each school principal about the school crime reporting program, the crime descriptions included in the reporting program, and the reporting and validation criteria identified by the State Department of Education for each crime description. (d) The State Department of Education, or its designee, shall distribute, upon request, to each school district governing board, each office of the county superintendent of schools, each county probation department, the Attorney General, the Fair Employment and Housing Commission, county human 99 m K D o O o m e r n a n u n t h W N e W W W W W W W W W N O N N N N N N N N M N e P r P e e e B S O T G A G R O N D A S S R I A D B E O N E S O M I D N A W N E —3— SB 822 relations commissions, civil mghts organizations, and private organizations, a summary of the statewide aggregated data. The department also shall distribute, upon request, to. each office of the county superintendent of schools and each county probation department, a summary of that county’s district reports and county reports. This information shall be supplied not later than March 1 of each year for the previous school year. The department shall also submit to the Legislature a summary of the statewide aggregated data not later than March 1 of each year for the previous school year. In addition, commencing with the second annual report, the department shall identify trends in school crime and evaluate school district and county school crime prevention programs by comparing the numbers and rates of crimes and the resulting economic losses for each year against those of previous years. (e) All school district, county, and statewide reports prepared under this chapter shall be deeméd public documents and shall be made available to the public at a price not to exceed the actual cost of duplication and distribution. SEC. 4. Section 628.4 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.4. Bytine39,1991,-+the The State Department of Education, or its designee, shall publish and distribute to all school districts and county offices of education an annual school crime reporting update that describes typical errors in school crime reporting procedures, describes effective and efficient methods of monitoring and recording school crime data, and identifies trends in school crime drawn from the annual school crime report submitted to the Legislature. SEC. 5. Section 628.5 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.5. The Legislature hereby recognizes that all pupils enrolled in California public schools have the inalienable right to attend classes on campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful. The Legislature also recognizes the importance of accurate school crime data 99 a SB 822 —~6— a C w o o n r n n n h w n d - W W W W W N O N N N N N N N N N S e e e e r e e in developing and implementing school safety strategies and programs. The State Department of Education, in consultation with school districts and county offices of education, shall identify criteria for reporting and validating the reported ineidenee incidents of each crime description contained on the standard school crime reporting forms prepared pursuant to Sections 628.1 and 628.2. Vekdatiern Reporting and validation criteria shall be established for each crime description, tkat—tnelide including, but skal not limited to, all of the following: assault battery, assault with a deadly weapon, untawfal—fightine graffiti, homicide, sex offenses, robbery, extortion, ehemieat—-substanee drug and alcohol offenses, possession of weapons, destructive devices, arson, burglary, theft, and vandalism. By—emuary ; . F994; ne mt > Department-of Education shalt puiet et SEC. 6. Section 628.6 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 628.6. Beginning July 1, 1499+ 1995, the State Department of Education, or its designee, shall use tested approved reporting and validation criteria in a representative sample of school districts and county offices of education to assess the accuracy of school crime data submitted to it by those agencies. The State Department of Education, or its designee, shall inform school districts and county offices of education of the reporting and validation criteria for the crime descriptions included on the standard school crime reporting forms specified in Section 628.1. Each district and county office of education shall in turn notify their respective schools, programs, and sites of the reporting and validation criteria. SEC. 7. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: 99 h W N - —7T— SB 822 In order to ensure that new regulations are approved in a timely manner to affect the implementation of a consistent and accurate school crime reporting program, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. 99 EXHIBIT 5 SB 1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis SENATE RULES COMMITTEE _SB_ 1626 Office of Senate Floor Analyses 1020 N Street, Suite 524 (916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) 327-4478 __ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 1626 Author: Hughes (D) Amended: 6/18/98 Vote: 21 SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 6-0, 3/31/98 AYES: Vasconcellos, Rainey, Burton, McPherson, Schiff Watson NOT VOTING: Kopp, Polanco SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-0, 5/4/98 AYES: Johnston, Alpert, Burton, Dills, Hughes, Karnette, Kelley, McPherson, Vasconcellos NOT VOTING: Calderon, Johnson, Leslie, Mountjoy SENATE FLOOR : 37-6, 5/14/98 (Consent} AYES: Alpert, Ayala, Brulte, Burton, Calderon, Costa, Dills, Greene, Hayden, Haynes, Hughes, Johannessen, Johnson, Johnston, Karnette, Kelley, Knight, Kopp, Leslie, Lewis, Lockyer, Maddy, McPherson, Monteith, Mountjoy, O'Connell, Peace, Polanco, Rainey, Rosenthal, Schif&—, Sher, Solis, Thompson, Vasconcellos, Watson, Wright NOT VOTING: Craven, Hurt ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 76-0, 8/13/98 - See last page for vote SUBJECT : School security officers: training SOURCE : Peace Officers Research Association of California 0 DIGEST : This bill sets minimum required standards for applicants and existing employees who serve as school security officers. Assembly Amendments allow fingerprints to be submitted electronically. ANALYSIS. : Existing law authorizes the governing board of any school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security. Existing law authorizes a school district to establish an unpaid volunteer school police reserve officer corps to supplement a school police department. Any person deputized by a school district as a school police reserve officer shall complete the training prescribed by Section 832.2 of the Penal Code. It is the stated intent of the Legislature to allow school districts to use volunteer school police reserve officers to the extent necessary to provide a safe and secure school environment. Existing law enacted in SB 366 (Chapter 117, Statutes of 1997) required POST to review minimum training and selection standards for school district police and members of a security or police department of a school district. The commission was required to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 1998. This bill: be -States that it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure the safety of pupils, staff, and the public on or near California's community colleges, by providing community college security officers with training that will enable them to deal with the increasingly diverse and dangerous situations they encounter. 2.Requires that after July 1, 2000, every school security officer employed by a community college district who works more than 20 hours a week as a school security officer on the property of a community college, shall complete a course of training developed no later than July 1, 1999, by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services of the Department of Consumer Affairs in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. BILL ANALYSIS Page 1 of 4 htto://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb1601-1650/sb_1626cfa_199808171747... 6/30/2010 yeaa SB 1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis qv 3.Provides that if any community college security officer is required to carry a firearm while employed, that oO school security officer shall additionally satisfy the training requirements of Penal Code Section 832. 4.Defines "security officer" as any person primarily employed, or assigned to provide security services as a watchperson, security guard, or patrolperson on or about premises owned or operated by the school district to protect persons or property or to prevent the theft or unlawful taking of district property of any kind or to report any unlawful activity observed to the district and local law enforcement agencies. wi -Provides that no security officer shall be employed, or continued to be employed, until the applicant or employee has submitted two copies of his or her fingerprints on forms, or electronically prescribed by the Department of Justice. The district would be required to submit the fingerprints to the Department of Justice, which, in turn, must submit one copy of the fingerprints to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. An applicant or contracted employee who holds a permanent registration with the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services as a security guard need only submit one copy of his or her fingerprints, which copy shall be submitted to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation. An applicant or contracted employee who is registered by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, and who holds a firearms qualification card as specified in Section 7583.22, is exempt from the requirements of this subdivision. The applicant or employee has been determined not to be a person prohibited from employment by the community college and has been determined by the Department of Justice not to be a person prohibited from possessing a firearm if the applicant or employee is required to carry a firearm. The Department of Justice is authorized to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in lieu of submitting fingerprints to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to meet these requirements. a -Requires that every security officer employed prior to July 1, 2000, who works more than 20 hours a week as a school security officer shall meet the new training requirements by July 1, 2002, unless he or she has completed an equivalent course of instruction, as specified. ~ -Adds in the Business and Professions Code the same requirement that after July 1, 2000, (a) every security guard employed by a K-12 school district or community college, and, {(b) every school security guard working on the property of a public K-12 or community college district pursuant to a contract with a private licensed security agency who works more than 20 hours per week, shall complete a course of training developed no later than July 1, 1999, by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services of the Department of Consumer Affairs. Providea that the course shall be developed in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. 8.Makes related changes. NOTE: There are 999 K-12 (586 elementary, 104 high school and 309 unified) level school districts in California; there are 106 community colleges in California. Many schoo] districts at the K-12 level use unarmed security guards and most districts do not have their own school peace officers. RelatedLegislation SB 366 (Hughes), Chapter 117, Statutes of 1997, passed the Senate 35-2 (Noes: Hurtt, Mountjoy). SB 1627 (Hughes), which is on the Senate Floor, sets new standards for school police officers. Both bills are intended to improve the level of training for school personnel -- school police officers (peace officers) and school security officers (who are not peace officers) -- on K-12 and community college property in order to better ensure school safety- Page 2 of 4 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1626cfa_19980817_1747... 6/30/2010 SB 1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Major Provisions 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 Fund Training and ------------------- See comments . below---------- See below fingerprint fees Processing fingerprint Unknown increased costs, probably Special* cards minor, absorbable to process additional fingerprint cards, offset by fee revenues Training course Unknown increased costs in the rangeSpecial** of $4-123 *Fingerprint Fees Account **Private Security Services Fund SUPPORT : {Verified 8/14/98) Peace Officers Research Association of California (source) San Bernardino County sheriffs Department California School Employees Association Kern County Superintendent of Schools California College and University Police Chiefs Association City of Los Angeles Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The author indicates the Executive Summary from the POST "Report to the Legislature on School Safety and Professional Standards for School Peace Officers/Security Personnel" (November 1997) states that: "Great variations also exists with respect to the professional standards of school security guards. Whether as school employees or contract personnel, security officers generally wear uniforms and serve in prevention and reporting roles. Unlike school police officers, they do not investigate nor make arrests. There are no state minimum training standards for school security officers who are employees and only nominal for those who are contract security depending upon what safety equipment is possessed." This bill and the companion measure, SB 1627, are desiqned to implement the POST report recommendations and to provide standardized training for both (1) school police and (2) school security officers whether employed or on contract. indicates the Executive Summary from the POST "Report to the Legislature on School Safety and Professional Standards for School Peace Officers/Security Personnel" (November 1997) states that: "Great variations also exists with respect to the professional standards of school security guards. Whether as school employees or contract personnel, security officers generally wear uniforms and serve in prevention and reporting roles. Unlike school police officers, they do not investigate nor make arrests. There are no state minimum training standards for school security officers who are employees and only nominal for those who are contract security depending upon what safety equipment is possessed." This bill and the companion measure, SB 1627, are designed to implement the POST report recommendations and to provide standardized training for both (1) school police and (2) school security officers whether employed or on contract. ASSEMBLY FLOOR AYES: Ackerman, Aguiar, Alby, Alquist, Aroner, Ashburn, Baca, Baldwin, Battin, Baugh, Bordonaro, Bowen, Bowler, Brewer, Brown, Bustamante, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Cunneen, Davis, Ducheny, Escutia, Figueroa, Firestone, Prusetta, Gallegos, Goldsmith, Granlund, Havice, Hertzberg, Honda, House, Kaloogian, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Kuykendall, Leach, Lempert, Leonard, Machado, Margett, Martinez, Mazzoni, Migden, Miller, Morrissey, Morrow, Murray, Napolitano, Olberg, Oller, Ortiz, Pacheco, Papan, Perata, Poochigian, Prenter, Pringle, Richter, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Strom-Martin, Thompson, Thomson, Torlakson, Vincent, Washington, Wayne, Wildman, Woods, Wright, Villaraigosa NOT VOTING: Floyd, McClintock, Sweeney, Takasugi RJG:sl 8/17/98 Senate Floor Analyses Page 3 of 4 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1626cfa_199808171747... 6/30/2010 SB 1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 4 SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE * END ee http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1626_cfa_19980817_ 1747... 6/30/2010 SB 1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis SB_ 1626 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 1626 (Hughes) As Amended June 18, 1998 Majority vote -SENATEVOTE : 37-0 PUBLIC SAFETY 8-0 APPROPRIATIONS 21-90 Ayes: Perata, Cunneen, Bowler, Ayes: Migden, Ashburn, Ackerman, Hertzberg, House, Murray, Bordonaro, Kelley, Brewer, Napolitano, Washington Cardenas, Escutia, Granlund, Hertzberg, Kuehl, Machado, Olberg, Papan, Poochigian, Shelley, Strom-Martin, Sweeney, Thompson, Thomson, Washington SUMMARY: Requires school security officers, as defined, who work more than 20 hours per week to complete a new school security training course to be developed. Precludes security guards from being employed directly or as contract employees at K-12 schools or community colleges after July 1, 2000, unless they have cleared criminal background checks. Specifically, _this bill 1} Requires the creation of a new training course designed for school security officers. 2 Requires after July 1, 2000, every K-12 and community college school security officer and every school security officer working on the property of a K-12 school or community college district pursuant to a contract with a private licensed security agency, who works more than 20 hours a week as a school security officer, to complete the new course. 3 Requires every school security officer employed by a school district prior to July 1, 2000, to meet the new training requirement by July 1, 2002, but exempts security officers who have already completed a 32-hour training course related to school police/security functions. 4) Requires all security guards and school security officers employed by or working at a public school district to have passed criminal background checks before working at the schools. 5) Makes other conforming changes. EXISTING LAW 1) Authorizes the governing board of any school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security, and to employ personnel to ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils and the security of the SB 1626 Page 2 school's property. 2) Authorizes the school district to use volunteer school police reserve officers, and requires deputized school police reserve officers to complete certain training offered by Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), currently consisting of 32 hours of training. 3 Provides no person who has been convicted of a violent or serious felony, as defined, shall be employed by a school district, or shall be employed by a school district in a position requiring qualifications, unless the conviction is for a serious (i.e., but not violent) felony and the person has obtained a certificate of rehabilitation and pardon or proves to the sentencing court by clear and convincing evidence that he or she has been rehabilitated for one full year. 4) Provides no person shall be employed or retained in employment by a school district who has been convicted of any sex offense, as defined, or controlled substance offense, as defined. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, one-time costs to the Private Security Services Fund (i.e., under the State and Consumer Services Agency) of less than $100,000 for course development. COMMENTS +: According to the author, "The California public expects schools to provide a safe environment. The California Constitution guarantees it. Nevertheless, great variation exists between schools and districts as it relates to the background checks and training of those who provide security services. The competency of those responsible for maintaining school safety is unguestionably a significant safety factor. BILL ANALYSIS Page 1 of 2 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_1626cfa_199807161758... 6/30/2010 SB1626 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis "This bill closes some of the wide disparities that exist with reapect to the professional standards and training of security guards. Whether as school employees or contract personnel, security officers generally wear uniforms and serve in a prevention and reporting role working closely with the children. Unlike school police officers, they do not investigate nor make arrests. There are no state minimum training standards for school security officers whether contracted for or employed by the district. There are nominal training requirements only if the security officer is required to wear a weapon or safety equipment. "The School Security Officer Bill will require that all employed or contracted officers in the K-14 system, who work more than 20 hours a week, shall complete a course of training developed by the Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security and Investigative Services in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. "In addition, it requires that all contracted (i.e., employed Becurity are not required to be checked) security officers receive a complete criminal records check prior to performing their duties. These records checks shall be performed by the California SB 1626 Page 3 Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. "This bill recommends measured increases in the training and selection of school security officers. Again, the goal is to provide some credibility for the public and protection for the children and the employees that those who are guarding them, are themselves not criminals and know what they are doing." Please see the policy committee analysis for a more comprehensive discussion of this bill. Analysis prepared by : David Hendren / apubs / (916) 319-3744 040578 Page 2 of 2 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1601-1650/sb_ 1626cfa_19980716_1758... 6/30/2010 EXHIBIT 6 The documents following this page were photocopied fromthe files of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Law andPublic Safety ® @ D fp - o sent ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAW4T BILE NO: AB 158 2 BMD PUBLIC SAPFTY , ” , - FISCAL: NO BYRON [, SHER, CHAIRMAN URGENCY: NO HEARING STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 2136 DATE: 2/o/E3 (926) €45-3768 tr BILL NO. : AB 158 fas introduced) AUTHOR: TUCKER SUBIECT: RESISTING OR OBSTRUCTING PEACE OFPPICERS IK THE PERPORMANCK OF THEIR DUTIES, DIGEST: Existing law makes it a crime to willfully resist, obstruct or delay any public cificer in the lawful discharge of duty. This bill would codify 4ndicial decisions which have interpreted the term "public officers" toe include peace officers. ] STAPF COMMENTS: Co@ifies ExistingPractice, Commonly referred to as the crime of "resisting arrest", Section 148 of the Penal Code has long been inter- oreted tc apply to "peace officers" as well as public officers. {See In re, Bacon (1966) 240 Cal. App. 2d 34 and use nete toe CALJIC 16.100 which states that the term public officer includes those persons des- lgnateé as peace officers pursuant to Sections §30 through 830.9 of the Penal Code.}j Therefore, this bill makes no substantive chenge in the law. SOURCE: Winston Parkman SUPPORT: SORAC OPPOSTIT IGN: Unknown CONSULTANT: Geoffrey AL Goodman aah = w _ s t a CN CATMISAL LAW AND PUBLIC SAPETY AML A AApe eld kad a ke od we NOL: AB Las autHOR: Assemblyman Curtis RB. £ ficn oT governmental lewood {23.3} 678-4101 a L ore either this session or a & rislature? If so, please * number and digposition of the No emown Jegislation interim committee Tepert on the biil entity the report. fo KNOW) interim report. [a3 background material in ‘ State where such material by committee statt. a4 copies of letters of Support or opposition , OTEanigation er governmental agency which you either in support cf or opposition to 2 prior to hearing woes toantive ameridments to TEs IO mK o t a e = je e if a = p ot a ‘ a be y gai ts r y = hy oT to [a} 18 yes, please explain briefly theel aubetance of the amendments to be preparad Pare 2 Rily Anqsiveis Workshes (hd or examples that demonstrate to the substantial number 9 i for 1hegedviolation of : Penal Code it is necessary %o because a“pepeace officer 15 not consis public officer. pee FE oY examples are presented, pl explain why I nonetheless needed. a eyond the need RaSe explain wiry. Stat Laelading formeét us ook ete SA CATs T e RE PLIRN Pollo.) Tia CDS: € the Be cal Jaw clal systes, estimate the er 1s rite f a a ju d te j | ne pe ° a : wk bk 3 -. i Fula - AX S900 cea 19 B83 X Siete ae CuiCis, 7 Gui Deni. Stoke Publics Datgorcdierr @itice of the btate Bustic Betenfer et YG? wate STREET. THRt Piet wen SACRAMENTO, Ca BSE Whey Jaagare february &, 1983 ” tne purpose of thig amendment. mg wath an officer is ta Wagegt that since e clarifieation is being at’ following languege else be inserted after WHY by physical eondect.” (See AB 2629 (IM. Waters: RY (>) this statute is overly proad and tos ot © NEere are merely abusive words. We fe ted amendment would make it clear that Ta: lized for the exercise of free speech. Tt i Lm t the‘offense to those situations in which ootend actually preventing an effieer from dis- chiPg ax duties - er your etaff wisn to dicuss this further, $ eonkac;e me. Wery truly yours, [hamocs © poems MARICKIE C. SWARTZ Deputy State Public petender MOB awh ies criminal Lee ft Public Gaftety Committee SEEMS, esi ae SEadcaRaNAflAOEee Se Aepedal pont Gate oP. Se tomage, Pause hr Frecideat Kaiy bervi® Comite Dayalony arnyer Povstdent ahs SEOE Mtbeetie he Honorable Curtis Tucker ie owivtnes California State Assembly fe oP WE RUE as = Ti ‘4 : hg Ware is ae ee DheenS 2atS CaplTDa aunty Haoreamenta, CA 8SEL4E k atepaces rn Ae oo Ss yng utes oF Dear Besembiyman Tucker: leeseeR) a oe Dysaetgiver 47 BealARES Caren (Holes. Grenade bose FERBES,a RatKER, ally Saevel aa han EEUEASE i588 , has been reviewed by the — slative Committees of the California * Bssociation. The committee has taken a position of “approve i fneiple” on your bill,41SUM cra An SLEC GUY assletance, please Go not oe ell upon us, AN your Saquest, nd Ll endeavor to provide you with research an co 2 2 testimony at committees hearings on this biil La bePsbats ear A Syptegan Wossgse Foy degerlyy benare yay sss, Sccnomanig Cow “ 44 ey Se Bay 3 ‘ Mig HZ Tg : iePeere Idanne weShane aan’ Po by? pe we de 44 oA ope he 4 RAKEWCONMELT. (paislative ASSL SCANT fasgrure, Suaviedy cee PRANK | OIADEA, f Commentdiay Mrarred Cabyyraut Sivery Dapacrmari PAQEES Te STH Cain. Lexie PRYEMAT WAGEEREA CReES, Paes end ACHRNLA LEGER Vdpors re T Podge we ah Fay batsgidtcars.Endod & Qeen fers @ oar cL yhepeses ae Ueaas ora4 bidity Wea ¥ “Preadividesl fe Prodessearal daw & atxlistired an EMZ DEaEe * ‘ Cs ae” ”we VINISTON FARKIAANM | [MIC Lore UF PIES BD ° ys DONE MAN ONES THIR BUTE woe ” INGLEMA, (CALEFOPAN DA Oar seb ba Bt tales ME IO, BE Se Pe I P IF Me “i A R Y ! Ges BeheS271 47GH-= D HONORABLE CURTIS FUCKER ee Cj aay SSEMBLYMAN, SOTH DISTRICT JAN 2 TATE CAPITOL RAMENTO, CALIFORNIA RE: SECTION 148 AMENDED sage fo ee ee e ios " Sco a : etPaonk you for the copy of Mee propescd amended Seotian f48 foe, i Rawe regd the cose of IN RE BACON, ¢ copy of eichDOOsateenate wou Sera? to Ae. pe i true, the Court of Appeal! has held in those Section jaf iz ooplicable ta peace officers, that consider, most judges hove been prosecutor ecutor minded and this js an easy out for them, (cite yo a Cennecticut cose os competent cuthority for the aeieition of pubile office: "The essential characteristics of "gublic office” are: authority conferred by jew, (2) fixed tenure of office, and ! puwer tg exercise some portion of sovereign functions of government; ihe key element of such test is thet the “offtcer™ is carrying out some foversign function, ” SPRING V. COMSTANTING, 768 CONN, S63 “The eugentiol elements to esteblish a public position as o "public officer” are: "The position must be crested by the constitution, tire Ssioluree, ar through oulhority conferred by the fegistature, a position of sovereign powtr of government must be delegated io. fhe position, dulies ond powers musi be defined, deectiy or mmougd?s, by toe legstoture . . . ond these duties must be porlormed without control of superior power other thon ime end the nosition must hove some pSOTTOY ord continuity. * STATE V. TAYLOR, 766 (OWA 634, fiat is the holder of e public office, ” ePoiSes posit : “whether ¢‘greot¢or emell. ¥. BOARD OF CONCILIATION AF 4 ; # at Ao, ad OTs, OF ARL ie aTTON j ¥ : thorged with 398 Penal Code violations do not howe with which io corry the fight to the State Supreme Court ; ape derthey wish to suffer the expense even though they hove the BACON cose clied in the cases furnished by PCa. 2f 34) nowhere touches the pone motes 4, 716 £& 203,: The closest eS is point was on poge 54 wherein the “pubirc WATS challenged irs WoCeS sFualiy tart gounds oF , mot otherwise The folio ce officers ore aise public officers, becouse wre ore officers: (. Uenuty Sheriffs 2. Oepupy iisirict Attorneys ; 3. Aleonelic Beverage Cantro! deputies; and 4. Hany others, but not city police officers. Very truly yours, WINSTOW W. PARKMAN, fA rf nysen /[A lig? fay rare ON W. PARKMAN : tte ie YaPe wm LUN EF S R N R SEIS¥ Loh Cafihorioa STATE OFFICE ISIZF STREET © SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 25814 1918} 444-0660 = (B00) 982-5283 AN 1@ BBS “te ee 4's 3 yuojanvary 13, 1983 ASS er Teh Ft fier de . Shahe Dacor Be Pho 4 & & in yRe: BAB LSS Tucker (00 members through more than 400 sorting AB i50—peace officers. ariv, GE4LL, Oirecthor wee ee Seee EUR RS © ey yeyWee SEAae ' me LR ee amb | 4 j- 2 Tey wyRe :cc; “Assemblvman Curtis Tacker YESSRCACtemtienen ta aeratetennDarton eetmtrtmtmstebnNtat tp wae tee OT DS be we PAP SETA ba de $e ve < we g i Yr oe - ~ WUNSTON (A. PARKMAN. FNC ahEDP SEE Ve makeETESOIT RT rl INSOLEMSOOD, TOAPOR LA Stay D F od a 8 7 * PELLPN we 4 RUGHST Lose IDNs Be RABLE CU:REIS TUCKER LYME DISTRICT As a defense attorney in criminal ceases, Tocam eppalled at the number of wrongful nomviections obtainwd for alleged vicLation of Section 148 of the California Penel Code. Section 1453 refers to persons who interfere ith "Public Officers” not peace officers. The legisisture, in ite collective wisdom, wisely chose the term "public officer” for a reason, Surely ped it mearit to include "“peate officers" it would have do SO. & day does not pass without semeone being convicted under this section for interfering with 2 police officer, who, by no definition, is “public officer." l seggest we legalize the court's judgments oy amending Penal Code section 148 \to read ag tqllLows: aa a "142. Resisting or obstructing public officer or police officer. Every person who wilfully resiste, delays, or sbabructs any public officer or any peace officer AL Ge or atLempt to discharge any auty » ato.” aeween officer” to the statute, will be legal. pe e wee e e n i n e t n e t a ae : s u a i a i i R I N N E “ R O Y “ E R N M E N T TUCKER sa as Lome RE PY 4AMD BO hipessible to convince = judge is not necessarily « public cogent” defendants are wrongfully resent section 149. uy Gonsigeration of thas Very traly yours, WINSTON W. FRREMAN, INC. r } a j 7? ¢ BY:WE&fs wilt:it Ue VoLum! EE ws VeSTHeETON Fe ok Oka a EXHIBIT 7 The documents following this page were photocopied fromthe files of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. WORKINGCOPY Dg NO T REMO VE Jate of Hearing: March 9, I9By AB 46? STINErRLabbe. BOSENBLY COMMITTEE GN PUBLIC SAFETY Larry Stirling, Chair AB 462 (N.weters) - 48 Introduced: february 3, 1987 ESTSTING, DELAYING OR O8STPUCTING A PEACE 0 ENCOMPASS EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS AND PARAMEOICS? TOE ST Under current jaw, willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing any public officer or peace officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty or his or her office 18 a misdemeanor, punishable when no other punishment is nrescriped by up to ame year in the county jaf], a fine not to exceed $1,000 ar both. This bit) extends the definition of this crime to encompass those who willfully resist, delay Gr obstruct an emergency medical technician or mobtle intenstve care paramedic, as defined, COMMENTS Li Purgose. Under current Tae it 15 a crime for one to Stop €. the srene of an amergency for the purpose of viewing either the scene or the activities of emergency personnel in the course of their duties, and to impede such persons from performing their duties. This provision, however, does mot prescribe one from doing so when not for these specified purposes. According to the state Emergency Medical Services Authority, thts bil) fs needed beChuse the lack of specific intent to gn to the scene for the purposes OF viewtng it has been successfully used a5 aA defense, 2) Tecknice) AmendmentSuggested. This bill amends Section 148 of the Penal Code. Sfnce Section402 of the. Penal Code already makes it a crime under certain circumstances to interfere with emergency personnel tn the performance of their duties {see Comment #15, the author may wish ta consider @exnanding the circumstances under which Penal Code Section 402 applies, rather than having two separate sections in different areas of the code which address the same type of activity. It showld he noted that this B11] carries a maximum jai) term of 1 year in thea county fail, and that Sectton 407 carries a maximum fat] term of 6 months. Should the author elect to Lake this amendment, he could either leave the maximum penalty at & months, rétse the maximum penslty to 1 year, of ai ioe’ Fur « wos imum penalty of _year just for those offenders with the pn - rt ql 5S pecifig intent lo interfere with an emergency, Allowing for a4 higher pernaley urder certasn cipcumslances: under pre fast optien enoule “ot be A’surencrlianate Since such persons are more vipat ie than these who simoiy qo the the green Of an emerdercy For Lhe durpase ot atewbng 64, 4} AB 462 what Bre Em erg rity Technicians” and “Hohile Intensive Care Paramedic TaIS bi co 5 “emergency medical technician” to be these commation certificate fram &@ Drogram approved aith Services for the mecical training and &| Toes568 sing a valic bYthe State baparor cat. whe $0 “and who meet certain standards as set atety Code. It defines "mobile intensive care o mest the standards as set forth in the Healthcs5! “tehe those and Safety Code. parameds THe Neat hed m3 safety Code, however, provides that the local Emergency “s duthority, mot the Uepartment of Health Services, shall ertification of emergency medical technicians. Additionally, no ionger provices far certification of “mobile intensive care nsteaad provides for three levels of emergency medical efiect the proper definitions of emergency i] should he cross-referenced te Division 2.5 o F a e U w e 78 e e an s P p w w e o ae r bet] OOe.a a n f y t y m® t H e e O F rk &e G 2 4 s LG < 9 a y p y 4 i h What foes A Duty of “Office” Include? This bit] {and current taw}) refers 0 those who discharge "any duty of nis or her office.” Althaugh commissioned emergency medical technicians would have duties of their "office," noncommissioned emergency medical technicians who are employed by private enterprise would not have duties of "office." In order to clarify that this bill is intenced to refer to emergency technicians, whether commissioned or not, if should be amended to read "any duty af his or her employment. SOURCE: Tuotumme County Sheriff's Office WORKING COPY DO NOT REMOVE AB 462 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENUMENTS AB 462 (8, Waters) - As Amended: June 17, 1987 ASSEMBLY VOTE_74-0( April 22, 1987 ) SENATE VOTE_33-0 (July 9, 1987} (Consent Calendar) Brigine] Committee Reference: PUB. 3. inser DIGEST As passed by the Assembly, this bil? extended the definition of resisting, delaying or oostructing & peace officer or any public officer to encompass these who willfully resist, delay or obstruct emergency medical techniclans (EMTs), as defined. The Sensie amendments: 1} Provide that when law enforcement officers and EMTs are at the scene of en accident, management of the scene of the accident shall vest with the Taw anforcement agency 2} Require law enforcement representatives to consult with representatives. of other response agencies also at the scene to ensure that resources are properiv used. No additional] state costa. Ceeee BD’ Adama ABAbe §45.3268 7 fiaARTs apubs . pyORKING copy * a — GO NOT REMOY; p ehFE “then Chiebat THISD READING a AB 462 K. Haters (D) 6f1YBT ia Senete Major} ty ven te 73-0, p. 1462, 4/21/87 (Passed Assembly on Consent) SUBGEO 2 Or ites SOURCE: Tuolumne County Sheriff's Office F: This bi}} would include emergency medical technicians in the proviston which makes §t a misdempanor ta willfully resist, delay, or obstruct any public afficer or peace officer in the discharge of his or her office. of This Bill aise provides for management of an accident scene when law enforcement officers andl emergency medical technicians are present at the scene of an accident, linder current law every persan who willfully resists, delays, or any public officer or peace afficer, in the discharge or attempt to ky of his or per office may be punished by a fine not excesding soot’ jaii term not exceeding one year, or by both. Tals bf11 would include within the above provisions the willful resistance, doiay, or ebstruction of emergency medical technicians in the discharge or attempt to dlacharge the duties of their office or employment. t x i *% i i ney idenhify mobile intensive care paramedics or emergency med jcal within the calegory of Ene people whoa showid not be the course Gf thelr cuty ar employment. This bi) would " erfortnce, thereby providing the same protection to techeote tang AS a@iready provided to peace officers, Agab2 Page2 G law gubhorizes designated pean afficers to close areas affected by ans, matwral disasters, accident, or Guher disasters whenever there is a to the putlic heelth or safety, and prohibits unauthorized persons to _ ly and Knowingly enter or willfully remitin ja those areas. Youu td afprcement officers and emergency medical ans are a m ident, management. of the scene of the as defin cz ted is the appropriate law enforcement agency, requ et Ge that law enforcement agency to consult representatives of other response agenctes at the scene to ensure that grigte resources are properly utilized, thus impos ing a state-mandated gram by imposing mew duties upon local Jaw enforcement agencies. Mo Fisecad Committee: Yes Local: Yes Tuo laine County Sheriff's falifarnia .Ambu tas Ce iS California associat WERIS [Hh SUPPORT: Proponents assert that in a number of instances ICS Rave &experienced “uncalled for interference” in their atternts to pravide skijied care in life-threatening situations. RiGrim 7/1/87 Senate Floor Analyses WORKINiG COPY DO NOTREMOVE Lagislative Analyst March 30, 1987 Y BILL ND. 462 (Norwan Waters) AssempLy March 16, 1987 B/-BR Session ANALYSIS OF ASS i: cmel. AS Amended in is Fi¢cal Effect: Cost: No additional state costs, Revenue: Unknown revenues to local governments and state special funds from fines and nenelty assessments. Analysis: This bil} makes 1t a crime to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct emergency medical technicians in the discharge of their office or employment, This crime would be punishable by a fine of up to $1,060, imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or by both fine and imprisonment. Under existing law, it is a crime, punishable as specified above, to willfully resist, delay or obstruct public officers or peace officers in the discharge of their office. Fiscal Effect To the extent that fines are imposed as a result of this bi11, local governments and certain state special funds could receive additional revenues from Fines and penalty assessments. Mandated Local Program. The bil] could result in local law enforcement and Incarceration costs. The bill contains «a crimes and infractions disclaimer. alfs4fo u | . . he SeELS we ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Larry Stirling, Chair 1100 J Street, Room 404 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-3268 BILL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET n, ( Teeyt betin Dees AT TAOGA,tetBg NG (Baten oo 8. feet FM debs deOC they (PERS Siw ChetegGun, meorete (Opwitiaw f Oy edaee4 ARETELie Sree KUBbclytpresoc f Peer ester > fais D4; bl Please present specific facts or examples that demonstrate the need for this bill. i EMEC Pads piel fal Fhebe6 aeneprce Chtsatpy Llreas Afe et Moles been) fy “Jia FRE faeetefet ne fetide af FIME Sree re ‘eo gy Md ge : ye ft, bt Ve , of Fie ete Peer FRLeaflees| i (if me facts or examples ere nope theless needed, Lac fpr 5 PPLAEL: tu) 4 Mf ad baer J JTesen MOVIES fol71 taPED JAbit!, we , et, please explain why the bill 45 BorpitenalS)MbtletuercryloiTie rg Gen Meeen, LEILLSC8 Ghat FECSCO Stee, bf Cutis7 7 : Bigtt FGwey A TE Bot a hfetae Faw egi tee, EPPRAht t i cee ig tea meanlwgf Metieasin ACMASS AORNone J o . enone es we sisson ee _ : on tnmanneete ne cok sedges et set Petit eyed oe Rev) nage | di f h 2] , 4 heeat # Page 2? - Worksheet if the proposed remedy in the bil] goes beyond the need demonstrated by your Tacts or eaamples, Please explain why.te Loe fi | oy7seg SOURCE AND BACKGROUND OF BILL. What, 77 any, nization or governmenta!l entity requested jatroduction person, oF = & £ bY gar e1i? a of this oy ee . : pet Atipery Heres Ae toca | enc Cherety Attensa 1s fre tee Has a Similar bil] been before either this session or a previous session af the Legislature? If so, please identify the session, pill number, and disposition of the bill. hae Has there bean any interim committee report on this bill? If so, lgase identify the report. pe is Pigase gitach copies bill, or state where committees staff. of any background materia! in explanation of this such material 15 available for reference by see Pe OP edithatt ema etm akeatth 4s af$ Please attach copies of letters of support or opposition you have received, Ldsat AT Ps Then’ S) BMERDMENTS PRIOR TO REARING, ien zl LEPmem gyplaneta atten APEARATE AB mee fit Glattyr any Suostantive amenduents ta this bili prior te hearing? Yes Ho fen, i : = Ade |Pcent i ped aon mex? page| Page 3 - korksheet by If the answer to Le) ds "yes" please explair broefly the substance of ¥ ; | : | the amendments being prepared for attach a copy of the draft which has7 y > - ” Gong to Legislative Counsel} COSTS IMPOSED BY BILL. Please estimate the cost or savings to any state or local law enforcement or coerrectione? agency, including the judicial system, imposed by thie bil] and explain the formule used to estimete the cost or savings. Lebererion ware Tt fos Ye Sere. RETURN THIS FORM TO: Sarlene Fridtey-Blue Lommittee Secretary Assembly Committee on Public Safety 1100 J Street, Room 404 SACAMENLO , Ch g5al4 BACKGROUND AB 462 Emergency Medical Services Authority Susan French Legislation 2-43.36 Po Section 146 : hill amends te expand abstruction of justice Bt Section 243 bill cross reference this Section for the definition of EMT and Mobile Intensive Care Paramedic. H#+5 Divisien 2.5 “ iy Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Care Technicians certified and authorized by local Emergency Medical Service Agency. Must also meet standards/reqguiations as established by the State Emergency Medical Services Agency. ection 40¢ Makes 1t a misdemeanor to interfere with Emergency Professionals whens qcing ta scene for purpose of viewing. According to Legisletive Counsel and EMSA, CMT’s are mot pubiic officials, ner are "commissioned® to perform public duties, ROP aie Au Sive., Sure 70 6 Saran,A asazt Furienirislraiee Ateee (216) 483-3852 » Goverment Aalations {856) 246-780 The Homerebin Morn Warers arate Uspiteal Sagy aes MET tember Waters: am wetiting on beheli of the California jabulance Association 2 inforevou thet we gre in whe?iehearted igupport of youreAs $62. & heave experienced, on more then one stcegien, uncalled erferenne with their attempts toe provide skilled paramedic vife-chreatening sitwations. m S California starutea cleariy do not identify emergency medinal technicians or mobile dnrensive care patamedics within the categery cf the people whe ¢hould mot be interfered win during the course of thedr duties. Your legislation is extremely important to the quality of care renelved by the citizens of this state. ink you far your interest and concern in this area. We stand sauy Lo Suppart thiy bill in every way peseible, Wicha@el Bilssen Peasy ident California Ambulance Association MM fom ec: Heombera, Aggesh ly Public Gafely Committee Consultant, égsembly Dublic aafery Commitlee ~, og ny gw Yo gem pe Be i ‘y z page by ftLoi otis Tih syst tte PIAL, SHERATON, (AON TCE Y Wen EXHIBIT 8 Goyernor Budget 2010 - Letters (CA Dept of Education) Page 1 of 5 JACK O'CONNELL STATE SUPERINTENDENT O° PUBLIC INSTRUCTION CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION March 4, 2010 Dear County and District Superintendents, Charter School Administrators, and Chief Business Officers: GOVERNOR’S BUDGET FOR 2010-11 On January 8, 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzeneggerreleased his budget for 2010-11. in addition to proposals for 2010- 11, the budget includes new proposals for revising the enacted 2008—09 and 2009-10 budgets to addressthe state’sfiscal crisis. This fetter provides information on the Governor's proposals that affect kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) education. Copies of this document, as well as other budget-related documents,are available on the California Departmentof Education (CDE) Education Budget Web pageathttp:/Awww.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/. Official state budget documents are available on the Department of Finance (DOF) Website at http://www.dof.ca.gov/ (Outside Source). The proposals for both 2008-09 and 2009-10 are currently under consideration by the Legislature, which is meeting in special session to addressthe state's fiscal crisis. The proposals for 2010-11 will be considered by the Legislature throughout the spring. Both sets of proposals arelikely to changesignificantly before final enactment. Overview The state again faces a huge budget challenge. The Governor's Budgetprojects a deficit of $19.9 billion for the two-year period including fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. On January 8, 2010, Governor Schwarzeneggerdeclared a “fiscal emergency.” Pursuant to Proposition 58 (Article IV, Section 10[f] of the California Constitution), the Legislature is required to hold a special session and mustact within 45 days to address the emergency.If the Legislature does not act within 45 days, it may not act on otherbills or adjourn until it has done so. This $19.9billion deficit is the result of a variety of factors. The state has seen a greater than anticipated decline in General Fund revenues. Some budgetreductions did not materialize and temporary budget solutions are set to expire. As a-result, the Governor’s Budget proposesto close the budget gapin the current and budget years through expenditure reductions across most programs and significant increasesin federal funds. in the event that increases in federal funds do not materialize, the Governor’s Budget proposes to suspendtax credits and make additional ongoing program reductions. Proposition 98 2008-09 Proposition 98 Changes Due to a greater than anticipated drop in state revenues, the minimum funding level required by Proposition 98 is projected to be $2.2 billion below the level provided to K-12 and community college (K-14) programs under the 2008-09 budget package as amendedin July 2009. The Governor proposes to reduce 2008-09 spending for K-14 programsfrom state and local funds by $82.9 million, from $49.1 billion to $49 billion. The DOF projects this savings can be achieved through natural savings and will not change amounts allocated to K-14 programs. In connection with the 2008-09 spending reduction, the Governor’s Budget proposes to reopen the Proposition 98 certification that was enacted in Assembly Bill 3 of the 2009 Fourth Extraordinary Session (ABX4 3), (Chapter 3, Statutes of 2009, Fourth Extraordinary Session). This proposed changeto the certified Proposition 98 guarantee for 2008-09 would meanthat the Proposition 98 minimum funding level would be calculated under “Test 1” for the first time since 1988-89. Figure 1 provides an overview of Proposition 98 principles and the calculation methodology. Effectively, this change would mean the outstanding maintenance factor of $11.2 billion specified in ABX4 3 would no longer exist. As enacted in ABX4 3, the $11.2 billion maintenance factor would have been restored overtime to the Proposition 98 base asthe state’s economy and revenues improve, as outlined in the constitution. The Governor's Budget recognizes an $11.2 billion statutory “in-lieu” maintenance factor obligation and proposes to begin repayment in 2012-13; however, repayment would no longer be based onthe constitutional formula and would be at the discretion of the Legislature. Figure 1 Proposition 98 Overview Basic Principles http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr1 01tr0304b.asp 7/6/2010 . Governor Budget 2010 - Letters (CA Dept of Education) Page 2 of 5 Proposition 98, approved bythe voters in 1988, provides a constitutionally guaranteed minimumlevel of funding to K-12 schools and community colleges. In years of “normal” state revenue growth, K-14 education is guaranteed a level of state and local funding at least equa! to the funding level received in the prior year, adjusted for changesin enrollment and per capita personal income. In years of extraordinarily good or bad revenue growth, K-14 education participates in the state’s gains or losses according to specified “fair share” formulas. Proposition 98 may be suspendedin a statute passed with a two-thirds vote, enacted separately from the budget. Following a “fair share” reduction in the level of the Proposition 98 funding guarantee or a suspension of the guarantee, the state eventually must restore K~14 education funding to the level that would have been provided had no reduction occurred. The paceofthis restorationis tied to the pace of the state’s economic recovery. The Specifics: Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, and Restoration Specifically, the guaranteed minimum funding level for K-14 educationis the greater of: e Test 1—Percent of General Fund Revenues: The percentage of state General Fund tax revenues received by schools and community colleges in 1986-87 as adjusted for the impactof shifts in property taxes from local governments to schools (currently about 40.6 percent), or e Test 2—Maintenance of Prior-Year Service Levels: The prior-year level of funding from state aid and local property taxes increased for enrollment growth and inflation as measured by the change in per capita personal income. However, in years when the percentage growth in per capita General Fund revenuesis less than the percentage growth in per capita personal incomeandthe difference exceeds 0.5 percent, the following alternative test is substituted for Test2: e Test 3—Adjustment Based on Available Revenues: The prior-year level of funding from state aid and local property taxes increased for enrollment growth andinflation as measured by the changein per capita General Fund revenuesplus 0.5 percent. Test 3 ensures that K-14 education bearsa fair share of the state’s General Fund revenue growth or decline in extraordinarily good or bad revenue growth years. e Test 3B—“Equal Pain, Equal Gain”: Test 3B is the same as Test 3, except that K-14 education cannotsuffer more cuts than the rest of the state budget. Restoration—If the Proposition 98 guarantee is reduced because of the application of Test 3 or a suspension of the guarantee, the amountlost is never repaid. The funding level must eventually be restored in the future, however, according to a formula thatis tied to the pace of the state’s economic recovery. 2009-10 Proposition 98 Changes The Governor's Budget projects General Fund revenues for 2009-10 will be $1.5 billion less than expected as of the July enacted budget. As a result of the reduction in General Fund revenues, the current year Proposition 98 guaranteeis projected to be decreased by $568 million, from $50.4billion to $49.9 billion. This reduction is madeupof a projected $340 million in savings from the kindergarten through grade three (K--3) Class Size Reduction program and a savings due toa decline in average daily attendance (ADA). 2010-11 Proposition 98 Changes The Governor’s Budget projects General Fund revenues for 2010-11 will increase by $1.2 billion over the revised 2009-10 level. As a result of this increase, the Governor’s Budget provides $50 billion in state and local funds for K-14 programs under Proposition 98 in 2010-11. This is an increase of $100 million from the revised 2009-10 fundinglevel. The Govemor’s Budget proposeseliminating a current sales tax on fuel and increasing the excise tax on gasoline. This proposal has a negative effect on the Proposition 98 guarantee becausethe fuel sales taxes are General Fund revenues used in determining the Proposition 98 minimum funding level for K-14 education. The loss of $1.8 billion in General Fund revenues equates to a $900 million decrease in the minimum amountof funding required for K-14 education. 2010-11 Major Funding Adjustments Figure 2 provides major adjustments to 2010-11 spending. Although total Proposition 98 funding is flat from yearto year, the adjustments are largely negative because of the need to backfill one-time solutions in 2009-10. Figure 2 K-12 Proposition 98 Funding 2010-11 Adjustments (in millions) C — http://Awww.cde.ca.gov/nt/el/le/yr1 Oltr0304b.asp | 7/6/2010 - Governor Budget 2010 - Letters (CA Dept of Education) Page 3 of 5 | Program or Activity lL Amount | [One-time funding I. [Emergency Repair Program IL $50 [Categorical funding for new schools in 2008-09 and 2009-10 Il 20 [Charter schoolfacilities funding IL 18 | [Ongoing funding I | [Backfill revenuelimit reduction IL 1,500 | [Special education—behavioral intervention plan I 65 | |Categorical funding for new schools IL 15 | Mandates—suspension ofall. mandates exceptfor inter/intra district transfers ($7.7 million) and the 14 California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)($6.8 million) [Schooldistrict administrative costs | -1,200 [Reduction to the K-3 Class Size Reduction program due to projected savings in the program | -550 | [Contracting out I -300 | [Negative cost-of-living adjustment IL. -202 | [Reduction of California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKS) Stage 3 I -123 | [Reduction in child care reimbursementrate limits in voucher-based programs IL -77 | [County office of education administrative consolidation | -45 | New School Categorical Funding The Governor’s Budget provides $15 million from the General Fund to provide categorical funding to newly established schools. Under current law, schools established after the base year used for allocating the categorical funds that were made flexible in 2008—09 may receive an allocation for these programsif they are administering the programsas they existed before they were madeflexible. Additionally, the Governor’s Budget provides $20 million in one-time funds to provide categorical funding for newly established schoois in 2008-09 and 2009-10. School Facilities Emergency Repairs (Williams) The Governor’s Budget provides $50 million from the Proposition 98 Reversion Account for emergencyfacility repairs pursuantto the Williams lawsuit settlement in 2004. Additional information on the Williams case is available on the CDE Williams Case Web pageat http:/Avww.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/index.asp. Reduction in Administrative Costs The Governor’s Budgetproposesto reduce schoo! district revenuelimit funding by approximately $1.5 billion to accountfor reductions to local administration. Of this amount, $1.2 billion is the result of a proposalto “reduce the proportion of funding school districts spend on central administration and protect classroom spending, including spending for teachers and principals, from further reductions.” An additional $300 million is proposed to be achievedbyeliminating barriers to contracting out to enable schooldistricts to achieve cost reductions Additionally, the Governor’s Budget proposes a $45 million reduction to county offices of education (COE) revenuelimits. This proposal would require COE to consolidate services and functions, which may include forming regional consortia to provide services. K-3 Class Size Reduction The Governor's Budget proposesto reduce the K-3 Class Size Reduction program by $550 million to reflect projected savings in the program. ABX4 3 allows schooldistricts to continue receiving funds for the program even though they increase class sizes. Savings will occur because the funding level is lower for higher class sizes. Mandates The Governor's Budget suspends ail K-12 mandates except costs associated with inter/intra district transfers ($7.7 million) and the CAHSEE($6.8 million). The Governor's Budget also proposes to fund costs associated with special education behavioral intervention plans ($65 million). Cost-of-Living and Growth Adjustments The budgetis reduced by $202.2 million for school district and COE revenuelimits and most categorical programsto reflect a negative cost-of-living adjustmentof 0.38 percent. The Governor’s Budgetprojects a 0.11 percent increase in ADA. The Governor’s Budget provides growth funding only for programslisted in Figure 3. Figure 3 Growth Adjustments by Program http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr10]tr0304b.asp 7/6/2010 a Governor Budget 2010 - Letters (CA Dept of Education) Page 4 of 5 | Program and Resource Code | Growth | [Charter school categorical block grants (0000) || 0.11% | [County office of education revenuelimits (0000) . I 0.11 | [Schooldistrict revenuelimits (0000) l| 0.11 | [Special education—state portion only (various) | 0.11 | [Child nutrition (6310) | 0.11 | Child Care and Development The Governor's Budget proposes to reduce child developmentfunding by $77.1 million through the continued use of the 2005 Market Rate Survey and by reducing the reimbursementrate ceilings for licensed child care providers in voucher- based programsfrom the 85th percentile to the 75th percentile of the regional market rate. The proposalwill also reduce the reimbursementrate ceilings for licensed-exemptproviders from 90 percent of the ceilings for licensed family child care homesto 70 percent. The reimbursement rate changes would beeffective July 1, 2010. This proposal affects the voucher- based programs, including the Alternative Payment Program ($12 million) and the CalWORKSStage 2 ($37 million) and Stage 3 ($28.1 million) programs. , The budgetfurther reduces the CalWORKSStage 3 program by $122.9 million to achieve additional ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund savings.In the past, CalWORKSStage 3 has beenfully funded to provide continued child care servicesfor former CalWORKSfamilies after their 24 months of Stage 2 transitional services have ended. Unlike CalWORKSStage 1 and Stage 2, Stage 3 is not an entitlement program. Charter Schools The Governor's Budget provides $18.4 million in one-time funds to the Charter Schools Facilities Grant Program to convert the program from a reimbursement modelto an annual grant program, allowing charter schools that currently receive these funds budgetary cashrelief. Federal Funds The Governor’s Budget proposes $8 million for the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides an additional free fresh fruit or vegetable snack to students during the school day. Program Reforms In addition to expenditure reductions, the Governor's Budget proposes additional flexibilities to schools through program reforms. Teacher Seniority The Governor’s Budget proposes to change state law to give local schooldistricts the flexibility to lay off, assign, reassign, transfer and rehire teachers based onskill and subject matter needs without regard to seniority. Substitute Costs The Governor's Budget proposesto eliminate provisions in state law that require teachers who havebeenlaid off to receive first priority for substitute assignments and these substitutes be paid at the rate they received before they werelaid off if they work more than 20 days within a 60-school-day period. Notification Process for Teacher Layoffs The budget proposes to changethestaffing notification window for teachers to 60 days after the state budget is adopted or amended. Under current law, teachers mustbe notified by March 15. Whatis Next? Wewill continue to keep you posted on the decisions madein the special session for the current year. In the meantime, you can find detailed information aboutindividual programs on the CDE Funding Web pageat http:/Awww.cde.ca.gov/fgfo/. The information available includes a program description, the allocation methodology,eligibility criteria, application process, and important dates. You can also subscribe to the CDE Funding mailinglist to receive e-mail notifications as requests for applications are announced and posted on the Web. To subscribe, select the "Join the Funding Mailing List" link on the CDE Available Funding Web pageat http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/af/. If you have any program-specific questions regarding the impact of the 2010-11 budget package, pleaseutilize the CDE Search CDE Funding Web pageathttp://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/o/sf/ to locate CDE funding and contact information. |f you have any questions regarding this subject or the 2010-11 Budget, please contact the Fiscal Policy Division by phone at 916-324-4728. You may also contact Carol Bingham, Director, Fiscal Policy Division, by e-mail at cbingham@cde.ca.gov. Sincerely, http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr1 0ltr0304b.asp 7/6/2010 Goyernor Budget 2010- Letters (CA Dept of Education) Page 5 of 5 JACK O'CONNELL JO:ap NOTICE: The guidancein this letter is not binding on local educational agencies or other entities. Except for the statutes, regulations, and court decisions that are referenced herein, this letter is exemplary, and compliance with it is not mandatory. (See California Education Code Section 33308.5.) California Department of Education 1430 N Street Last Reviewed: Monday, March 08, 2010 Sacramento, CA 95814 http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr1 01tr0304b.asp 7/6/2010 EXHIBIT 9 SanBernardino City Schools - Official Web i pe ssateemunsaennyiciony site - CrimeStatistics Page 1 of 1 sarnanraoturr atta candi 2 reaneta te 6 SCHOOLS PARENT RESOURCES STUDENT Resources Dyusrricr Orrices .ScuHoco,t Boarb ct Offices » District Police » Crime Statistics7 7 You are here: Horne > £ @Home pm Email MM Print CrimeStatistics Search San Bernardino... cE» . . > District Police Stats Crime 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 Aboutthe District Police Robbery (211 PC) 86 78 74 pean: Battery on School Property (243.2 PC) 24 6 4l Staff Directory Possession of Alcohol on School Property (25608 PC) cl 18 17 Services Fighting (415 PC) , 795 699 751 Burglary (459 PC) 65 87 116 ‘Truaney (Daytime Loitering) Petty Theft (488 PC) 72 164 155 oe Grand Theft (487 PC) 35 43 51 Satety Tips Knife on School Grounds (626.10 PC) 80 204 139 CrimeStatistics Gun onSchool Grounds (626.9 PC) 2 12 10 CA Codes For more information on these crime statistics, contact the School District Police at (909) 388-6030. CA Courts San Bernardino City Unified Schoo!District, 777 North F Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410, (909) 381-1100 Home / Calendar / ContactUs / PrintPage / EmailPage / E§FRSS / Espafiol / Accessibility / SiteMap / Copyrighl Notices http://www.sbcusd.com/index.aspx?nid=551 7/6/2010 EXHIBIT 10 DO] Releases Updated K-12 Schoo] Crime Stats - News - Campus Safety Magazine Page 1 of 3 CainiptisSafety pusscom SCHOOL SAFETY DOJ Releases Updated K-12 School Crime Stats WASHINGTON December 14, 2009 The U.S. Departmentof Justice (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs Bureaus of Justice Statistics just released Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2009. This annual report examines crime occurring in school as well as on the way to and from school. It also provides the most current detailed statistical information on the nature of crime in schools and school environments and responses to violence and crime at school. Key findings include the following: In the 2007-08 school year, an estimated 55.7 million students were enrolled in prekindergarten through grade 12. Preliminary data show that among youth ages 5-18, there were 43 school-associated violent deaths from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008. In 2007, among students ages 12-18, there were about 1.5 million victims of nonfatal crimes at school, including 826,800 thefts3 and 684,100 violent crimes (simple assault and serious violent crime). During the 2007-08 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that at least one violent crime, theft, or other crime occurred at their school. The following section presents key findings from each section of the report. Violent Deaths e From July i, 2007, through June 30, 2008, there were 21 homicides and 5 suicides of school-age youth (ages 5-18) at school, or about 1 homicide or suicide of a school-age youth at school per 2.1 million students enrolled during the 2007-08 school year. Nonfatal Student and Teacher Victimization e In 2007, students ages 12-18 were victims of about 1.5 million nonfatal crimes (theft3 plus violent crime4) while they were at school, compared to about 1.1 million nonfatal crimes while they were away from school, « In 2007, the rates for theft and violent crime were higher at school than away from school. In that year, students werevictims of 31 thefts per 1,000 students at schoo!, compared to 21 thefts per 1,000 students away from school. At schoo! there were 26 violent crimes per 1,000 students, compared to 20 violent crimes per 1,000 students away from school. e Although there was an overall decline in the victimization rates for students ages 12-18 at school between 1992 and 2007, there was no measurable difference in the rate of crime at school between 2004 and 2007. Between 1992 and 2007 the rate of crime for students away from school declined. e In 2007, 4 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being victimized at school during the previous 6 months: 3 percent reported theft,3 and 2 percent reported violent victimization. Less than half of a percent of students reported serious violent victimization. e In 2007, 10 percent of male students in grades 9-12 reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property in the past year, compared to 5 percent of female students. e Higher percentages of Black students (10 percent) and Hispanic students (9 percent) reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property than White students (7 percent) and American Indian/Alaska Native students (6 percent). e During the 2007-08 schoo! year, a greater percentage of teachers in city schools (10 percent) reported being threatened with injury than teachers in town schools (7 percent) and suburban or rurai schools (6 percent each). A greater percentage of teachers in city schools (5 percent) and suburban schools (4 percent) reported being physically attacked, compared to teachers in rural schools (3 percent). http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/School-Safety/News/Print/Story/2009/12/.... 7/6/2010 DOJ Releases Updated K-12 School CrimeStats - News - Campus Safety Magazine Page 2 of 3 A greater percentage of secondary school teachers (8 percent) reported being threatened with injury by a student than elementary school teachers (7 percent) However, a greater percentage of elementary school teachers (6 percent) reported being physically attacked than secondary school teachers (2 percent). School Environment During the 2007-08 school year, 85 percent of public schools recorded that one or more incidents of crime had taken place at school, amounting to an estimated 2.0 million crimes. This figure translates to a rate of 43 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled in 2007-08. During the same year, 62 percent of public schools reported an incident of crime that occurred at school to the police, amounting to about 704,000 crimes—or 15 crimes per 1,000 public school students enrolled. In 2007-08, 75 percent of public schools recorded one or more violent incidents of crime, 17 percent recorded one or more serious violent incidents, 47 percent recorded one or more thefts, and 67 percent recorded one or more other incidents. Thirty-eight percent of public schools reported at least one violent incident to police, 13 percent reported at least one serious violent incident to police, 31 percent reported at least one theft to police, and 49 percent reported one or more other incidents to police. During the 2007-08 school year, 25 percent of public schools reported that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, and 11 percent reported that student acts of disrespect for teachers other than verbal abuse took place on a daily or weekly basis. With regard to other discipline problems reported as occurring at least once a week, 6 percent of public schools reported student verbal abuse of teachers, 4 percent reported widespread disorder in the classroom, 4 percent reported student racial/ethnic tensions, and 3 percent reported student sexual harassment of other students. Twenty percent of public schools reported that gang activities had happened atall during 2007-08 and 3 percent reported that cult or extremist activities had happenedat all during that school year. In 2007, 23 percent of students ages 12~18 reported that there were gangsat their schools. Overall, a smaller percentage of White students (16 percent) and Asian students (17 percent) reported a gang presence at school than Black students (38 percent) and Hispanic students (36 percent). In 2007, 22 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone had offered, sold, or given them an illegal drug on school property in the past 12 months. Ten percent of students ages 12-18 reported that someone at school had used hate-related words against them, and more than one-third (35 percent) reported seeing hate-related graffiti at school in 2007. In 2007, 32 percent of students ages 12-18 reported having been bullied at school during the school year. Twenty-one percent of students said that they had experienced bullying that consisted of being made fun of; 18 percent reported being the subject of rumors; 11 percent said that they were pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 6 percent said they were threatened with harm; 5 percent said they were excluded from activities on purpose; and 4 percent of students said they were tried to make do things they did not want to do or that their property was destroyed on purpose. In 2007-08, 34 percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that student misbehavior interfered with their teaching, and 32 percent reported that student tardiness and class cutting interfered with their teaching. Seventy-two percent of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that other teachers at their school enforced the school rules, and 89 percent reported that the principal enforced the schoo! rules. A higher percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers reported that student misbehavior (39 vs. 33 percent) and student tardiness and class cutting (45 vs. 26 percent) interfered with their teaching in 2007-08. During the same year, a lower percentage of secondary school teachers than elementary school teachers agreed that school rules were enforced by teachers (56 vs. 79 percent) and by the principal in their schoo! (86 vs. 89 percent). Fights, Weapons, and Illegal Substances In 2007, 36 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they had been in a fight anywhere, and 12 percent said they had been in a fight on school property during the preceding 12 months. In the same year, 44 percent of males said they had been in a fight anywhere, compared to 27 percent of females, and 16 percent of males said they had beenin a fight on school property, compared to 9 percent of females. Eighteen percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2007 reported they had carried a weapon8 anywhere, and 6 percent reported they had carried a weapon on school property during the previous 30 days. There were at least three times as many males as females who reported carrying a weapon—either anywhere or on Schooj property—in all survey years. In 2007, for example, 9 percent of males carried a weapon on school property, compared to 3 percent of females, and 29 percent of males carried a weapon anywhere, compared to 7 percent of females. In 2007, 45 percent of students in grades 9-12 reported having consumedat least one drink of alcohol anywhere, and 4 percent reported having consumed at least one drink on school property during the http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/Schoo]-Safety/News/Print/Story/2009/12/... 7/6/2010 ~ DOJ Releases Updated K-12 School Crime Stats - News - Campus Safety Magazine Page 3 of 3 previous 30 days. Twenty percent of students in grades 9-12 in 2007 reported using marijuana anywhere during the past 30 days, and 4 percent reported using marijuana on school property during this period. Fear and Avoidance In 2007, approximately 5 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they were afraid of attack or harm at school, and 3 percent reported that they were afraid of attack or harm away from school. In 2007, smaller percentages of White students (4 percent) and Asian students (2 percent) reported being afraid of attack or harm at school than their Black (9 percent) and Hispanic (7 percent) peers. In 2007, 7 percent of students ages 12-18 reported that they had avoided a school activity or one or more places in school in the previous 6 months because of fear of attack or harm: 3 percent of students avoided a schoo! activity, and 6 percent avoided one or more places in school. Discipline, Safety, and Security Measures Forty-six percent of public schools (approximately 38,500 schools) took at least one serious disciplinary action against a student during the 2007-08 school year. Of the 767,900 serious disciplinary actions taken, 76 percent were suspensions for 5 days or more, 19 percent were transfers to specialized schools, and 5 percent were removals with no services for the remainder of the school year). Although the overall percentage of public schools taking a serious disciplinary action declined between 1999-2000 (54 percent) and 2003-04 (46 percent), there has been no measurable change since then. This same general pattern of decline between the period of 1999-2000 and 2003-04 with no measurable change in more recent survey years held both for the percentage of public schools that reported taking serious disciplinary actions for the offense of physical attacks or fights and for the offense of insubordination. Between the 1999-2000 and 2007-08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the use of the following safety and security measures: controlled access to the building during school hours (from 75 to 90 percent); controlied access to school grounds during school hours (from 34 to 43 percent); students required to wear badgesor picture IDs (from 4 to 8 percent); faculty required to wear badges or picture IDs (from 25 to 58 percent); the use of one or more security cameras to monitor school (from 19 to 55 percent); the provision of telephones in most classrooms (from 45 to 72 percent); and the requirement that students wear uniforms (from 12 to 18 percent). Between the 2003-04 and 2007-08 school years, there was an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the drug testing of student athletes (from 4 to 6 percent), as well as an increase in the percentage of public schools reporting the drug testing of students in other extracurricular activities (from 3 to 4 percent). During the 2007-08 school year, 43 percent of public schools reported that they had an electronic notification system for a school-wide emergency, and 31 percent of public schools reported that they had a structured, anonymous threat reporting system. The majority of students ages 12-18 reported that their school had a student code of conduct (96 percent) and a requirement that visitors sign in (94 percent) in 2007. Metal detectors were the least commonly observed security measure. Ten percent of students reported the use of metal detectors at their school. To review the full report, click here. COPYRIGHT © 2010 Campus Safety Magazine. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. http://www.campussafetymagazine.com/Channel/School-Safety/News/Print/Story/2009/12/... 7/6/2010