Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever in the judgment of the board the transportation is advisable and good reasons exist to do so.

This bill would entitle a pupil who attends a public, noncharter school that is eligible for receives Title 1 federal funding to free transportation to and from school if certain conditions are met. The bill would require a school district not currently providing transportation to all pupils attending schools that are eligible for receive Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan developed, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to ensure that all pupils entitled to free transportation receive the transportation. The bill would authorize school districts to contract with a municipally owned transit system to transport pupils if certain conditions are met. By requiring imposing new duties on a local educational agency, the bill would impose constitute a state-mandated local program.

This bill would create the Transportation and Access to Public School Fund and require the Superintendent of Public Instruction, upon appropriation to this fund by the Legislature, to allocate moneys from this fund to school districts, county offices of education, entities providing services under a school transportation joint powers agreement, or regional occupational centers or programs that provide pupil transportation an amount equal to the actual costs of the entitled transportation pursuant to this bill. The bill would provide that these provisions shall become operative only to the extent that funding is provided in the annual Budget Act or another statute.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever in the judgment of the board the transportation is advisable and good reasons exist to do so.

This bill would entitle a pupil who attends a public, noncharter school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding to free transportation to and from school provided by the local educational agency, school if certain conditions are met. The bill would require the local educational agency to designate a liaison a school district not currently providing transportation to all pupils attending schools that are eligible for Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan developed, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to ensure that all entitled pupils receive entitled to free transportation in a timely manner. receive the transportation. The bill would authorize school districts to contract with a municipally owned transit system to transport pupils if certain conditions are met. By requiring new duties on a local educational agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to provide for the transportation of pupils to and from school whenever in the judgment of the board the transportation is advisable and good reasons exist to do so.

This bill would entitle a pupil who attends a school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding to free transportation to and from school provided by the local educational agency, if certain conditions are met. The bill would require the local educational agency to designate a liaison to implement a plan developed, in consultation with specified stakeholders, to ensure that all entitled pupils receive free transportation in a timely manner.

By requiring new duties on a local educational agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1572

Author:(Campos) – As Amended Ver:April 21, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a public, noncharter school, to provide free transportation to a pupil attending a school that receives Title 1 federal funding. Specifically, this bill:

1. Revises existing law governing the authority of a school district to contract and pay for the transportation of all pupils to instead authorize this transportation to be provided only to middle and high school pupils. Further requires the vehicle for this type of transportation be driven by a public employee of a municipally-owned transit system (excludes private transportation contracts).
2. Entitles a student attending a public, noncharter school that receives Title I federal funding, to receive free transportation to and from school under the following conditions:
   1. The pupil resides more than one-half mile from the school.
   2. The neighborhood through which the pupil must travel to get to school is unsafe, as defined by the plan developed by the school district. Factors contributing to unsafe travel include: stray dogs, lack of sidewalks, known gang activity, presence of environmental problems and hazards, required crossings of freeways or busy intersections, or other reasons documented by stakeholders in the plan.
3. Requires school districts not currently providing transportation to all pupils attending schools that receive Title 1 federal funding, to implement a plan to ensure that all entitled pupils, as specified, receive free transportation. Requires the plan to accommodate special rights of homeless youth in existing law and to be developed in consultation with various stakeholders.
4. Requires transportation provided to students in Title I schools to be provided by a public employee. Authorizes the school district to partner with a municipality-owned transit system to provide the transportation to middle school and high school pupils if the employees are public employees, if the transit system can verify consistent routes and schedules to and from home, and the system does not charge more than a marginal cost for each transit pass.
5. Specifies nothing in the bill prevents a local transportation agency from providing no-cost transit passes to pupils attending Title 1 schools.
6. Establishes the Transportation and Access to Public School Fund in the State Treasury and makes all transportation services provided by this bill reimbursable from this fund. Allocates monies from this fund to the California Department of Education (CDE). Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) allocate funding to school districts starting in the 2017-18 fiscal year, pursuant to a process established by the SPI, and contingent upon an appropriation in the budget act or another statute.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Proposition 98/GF costs pressures, potentially in the millions of dollars, to provide free transportation to Title I students in need of a safe route to school as specified by the bill. In 2014-15, there were approximately 3.9 million students attending 6,457 schools that received Title I funds. The costs of providing transportation will vary by school and by the number of children that meet the requirements for free transportation. The provision of free transportation is contingent upon an appropriation of funds, either by the budget act or another statute. The Governor's budget does not propose funding for this purpose and the Legislative budget committees have not considered this issue.
2. General Fund administrative costs to the California Department of Education (CDE) of approximately $140,000, starting in 2017-18, if funds are provided to implement the program. CDE anticipates increased workload associated with planning, implementing and sustaining the newly created Transportation and Access to Public School Fund. Specific workload includes: establishing allocation criteria, conforming documents and website updates, and providing technical assistance and guidance to LEAs.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. This bill, sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the Children's Defense Fund, and Youth Justice Coalition, proposes to increase opportunities for disadvantaged youth by ensuring students who attend the poorest schools in California do not face barriers to getting to school. The author cites a 2015 report by the California Attorney General which found the inability to afford transportation to and from school is one of the most frequently cited barriers that low-income youth face in attending school. School buses are no longer sufficient, as their funding is continually being reduced and routes are being consolidated or cut. A survey of Oakland youth found that 61% of students reported that they sometimes use their lunch money to ride the bus. According to the author, in order to prevent low-income and disadvantaged children from being trapped in the cycle of poverty, underemployment and incarceration, California needs to enact comprehensive policies to remove structural barriers that keep them from obtaining an education, such as the lack of adequate transportation.
2. Prior legislation. This bill is similar to AB 891 (Campos) of 2015, which was held in on the Suspense file in this committee. This bill differs from AB 891 since it targets free transportation services to students attending Title 1 funded schools rather than students eligible for free and reduced price meals (FRPM). Using Title 1 as a measure could reach a slightly larger group of students. According to the CDE, in 2014-15, there were 3.9 million students in schools that received Title 1 funds. In contrast, there are 3.7 million pupils eligible for FRPM.

Another component that is different in this bill is the funding source. AB 891 required local educational agencies to use existing funds to provide transportation. AB 1572 makes requirements contingent upon funding in the annual Budget Act or another statute, for transportation that is provided by public employees, either hired by the district or a transit authority.

Finally, AB 891 required transportation to be provided based on distance and if the area the student must travel is unsafe due to stray dogs, no sidewalks or gang activity. AB 1572 expands the conditions that may be considered unsafe but makes the determination of unsafe conditions based on a plan, developed in consultation with specified stakeholders.

1. Opposition. The Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) is opposed to this bill. According to OCDE, approximately three-fourths of Santa Ana Unified School District students (42,000) meet the requirements of the bill and would qualify for free transportation. It is estimated providing this service for free would cost the district $238 million annually. Santa Ana USD indicates they would need to acquire additional buses, house additional bus fleets and hire drivers. The cost to provide one school bus is $190,000. The district indicates offering city bus passes could be an option but consultation and planning would need to occur with the Orange County Transit Authority ensure this is a feasible option.

Analysis Prepared by: Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1572 (

Author:Campos) – As Amended Ver:April 5, 2016

SUBJECT: School transportation

SUMMARY: Requires a public, noncharter school to provide free transportation to a pupil attending a school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding. Specifically, this bill:

1. Revises the provision authorizing a school district to contract and pay for the transportation of all pupils by specifying that that form of transportation may be provided only to middle and high school pupils and the vehicle for this type of transportation must be driven by a public employee of a municipally owned transit system.
2. Provides that a pupil attending a public, noncharter school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding shall be entitled to free transportation to and from school if either of the following conditions are met:
   1. The pupil resides more than one-half mile from the school; or,
   2. The neighborhood through which the pupil must travel to get to school is unsafe, as established by the plan required to be developed by this bill, which may include, but not be limited to, stray dogs, lack of sidewalks, known gang activity, presence of environmental problems and hazards, required crossings of freeways or busy intersections, or other reasons documented by stakeholders.
3. Requires a school district not currently providing transportation to all pupils attending schools that are eligible for Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan to ensure that all pupils entitled to free transportation receive the transportation.
4. Requires the plan to be developed in consultation with teachers, school administrators, regional local transit authorities, local air districts, the Department of Transportation, parents, pupils, and other stakeholders, and requires the plan to identify and accommodate the special rights of homeless youth.
5. Specifies that if free, dependable and timely transportation is not available for pupils entitled to transportation services, the school district shall ensure that free transportation is provided.
6. Authorizes a school district to partner with a transit authority to provide the transportation to middle school and high school pupils if all of the following conditions are met:
   1. All drivers are public employees of a municipality owned transit agency.
   2. The transit agency can certify that the public transit system can ensure consistent, adequate routes and schedules to enable pupils to get home, to school and back, and does not charge the school district more than marginal cost for each transit pass.
   3. Specifies that this bill does not prevent a local transportation agency from providing no-cost transit passes to pupils attending Title 1 schools.
7. Establishes the Transportation Access to Public School fund to be administered by the California Department of Education (CDE) and requires the following:
   1. All transportation required by this bill to be reimbursed by the Transportation and Access to Public School Fund.
   2. Funds to be allocated to the CDE for allocation to local educational agencies, upon appropriation by the Legislature.
   3. The Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate funds from the Transportation and Access to Public School Fund to school district, county office of education, entity providing services under a school transportation joint powers agreement, or regional occupational center or program that provides pupil transportation an amount equal to the actual costs of the entitled transportation. Specifies that the allocation shall be in addition to any amount apportioned to home-to-school transportation.
8. Specifies that this bill shall become operative only to the extent that funding is provided in the annual Budget Act or another statute for this purpose.
9. Finds and declares that independent academic studies indicate increase in school participation and graduate rates among children who were guaranteed transportation to and from school and expresses the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would support school participation and high school attainment among low-income youth.

EXISTING LAW: Provides state funding for school district and county office of education transportation costs based on the amount received for that purpose in the prior year, or the agencies’ actual transportation costs, whichever is less. Existing law also requires school districts to provide transportation services for special education students if the students’ individualized education plans specify such need. (Education Code Section 41850)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS: This bill requires a public, noncharter school to provide all students attending a school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding free transportation to and from school if the pupil lives more than half a mile from school, or if the neighborhood the pupil must travel to get to and from school is unsafe, as identified by a plan, which may include the presence of stray dogs, lack of sidewalks, known gang activity, lack of sidewalks, known gang activity, presence of environmental problems and hazards, required crossings of freeways or busy intersections, or other reasons documented by stakeholders.

The bill requires a school district not currently providing transportation to all pupils attending schools that are eligible for Title 1 federal funding to implement a plan to ensure that all pupils entitled to free transportation receive the transportation. The bill requires the plan to be developed in consultation with stakeholders, including teachers, school administrators, regional local transit authorities, local air districts, the Department of Transportation, parents, pupils, and others.

This bill is substantially similar to AB 891 (Campos), which was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file last year. AB 891 contained three proposals to address the needs of homeless and other low-income youth. This year, the author separated AB 891 into two bills, AB 1567 and AB 1572.

One of the major differences between AB 891 and this bill is the trigger. AB 891 requires a school district to provide free transportation to and from school for all pupils eligible for free and reduced-price meals. This bill makes the requirement based on whether a pupil is enrolled in a school that is eligible for federal Title 1 funds. Title I provides supplemental funding to schools with the highest percentage of low-income children. According to the CDE, in 2014-15, there were 3.9 million students in 6,457 schools that received Title 1 funds. In contrast, there are 3.7 million pupils (almost 60% of pupils) eligible for free and reduced-price meals. The other component that is different in this bill is the funding source. AB 891 required local educational agencies to use existing funds to provide transportation. This bill intends to provide funds, to the extent funds are provided in the annual Budget Act, for transportation that is provided by public employees, either hired by the district or a transit authority.

AB 891 required transportation to be provided based on distance and if the area the student must travel is unsafe due to stray dogs, no sidewalks or gang activity. This bill expands the conditions that may be considered unsafe but makes the determination of what is considered unsafe based on a plan, developed in consultation with specified stakeholders.

Impact on attendance. The author states that the inability to afford transportation to and from school is one of the most frequently cited barriers that low-income youth face in attending school. According to the author, a survey of Oakland youth found that 61% of students reported they sometimes use their lunch money to ride the bus. The author further states that other states, including New Jersey, New York and Missouri, guarantee transportation for students who live beyond a certain distance from their school.

Research of kindergarteners conducted by a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that students who rode a school bus to school had less absences and were less likely to be chronically truant. The professor hypothesizes that taking a bus provides structure for a regular schedule and therefore establishes a routine for regular school attendance.

Transportation funds. Until the enactment of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), home-to-school transportation was a categorical program that reimbursed school districts and county offices of education (COEs) for prior year approved transportation costs. Funding for transportation is one of the few funding streams that did not get rolled into the LCFF. Instead, districts and COEs continue to receive, outside of their LCFF funding, the same amount of transportation funding they received in the year immediately preceding the enactment of the LCFF, 2012-13. Districts and COEs receiving those funds must continue to spend them on transportation.

The amount received by districts and COEs varies widely. Some get more than 90% of their approved costs reimbursed with state funding. Others get no state funding at all, even though they have approved costs. The statewide average reimbursement is about 35% of approved costs.

Because the amount received by districts is held flat, transportation funding does not keep pace with inflation and, over time, becomes less related to actual workload. Some urban districts provide home-to-school transportation. Others do not, and rely instead on public transit.

Can transportation issues be addressed through the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP)? The Committee may wish to consider whether transportation issues can be addressed through a school district's LCAP. LCFF funds can be used for any purpose in accordance with the LCAP, which is developed locally to meet the needs of each district. The LCAP is required to meet eight state priorities. One of the priorities is "pupil engagement," as measured by factors such as school attendance rate and chronic absenteeism rate. School districts have an incentive to ensure that students are not absent in order to get average daily attendance (ADA). If transportation is identified as the barrier to attendance and the cause of chronic absenteeism, it could be funded through a district's LCFF allocation. The author may wish to consider strategies to encourage school districts to consider transportation barriers in the development of their LCAP.

Committee amendments.

1. Staff recommends an amendment clarifying that the reference to middle and high school pupils in Section 2 of the bill is specific to the provision of transportation provided by a municipally owned transit system contracted by the school district.
2. According to the CDE, it may be difficult to identify schools that are eligible for but do not receive Title 1 funds. Staff recommends changing the requirement to provide transportation to schools that receive, rather than schools that are eligible for, Title 1.

Arguments in support. The sponsors state, "According to a recent report by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, poverty and financial instability are a significant cause of student absenteeism in the state, and over 75% of students with chronic attendance problems are low-income….Providing free transportation, such as free public transit passes and school bus transportation in rural communities, to low-income students will enable them to attend school and take advantage of after-school programming proven to improve educational outcomes."

Arguments in opposition. The Orange County Department of Education (OCDE) opposes the bill and states, "OCDE is concerned about two significant problems that this bill raises. First, the breadth of this bill is significant and will result in large transportation-related costs to districts all over the state. As an example, the Santa Ana Unified School District in Central Orange County currently has enrollment of 56,000 students. At least ¾ of these students (42,000) would qualify for free transportation under the criteria of the bill. Santa Ana USD estimates that its ongoing costs would be approximately $238 million to comply with all of the requirements of the bill which includes the need to acquire additional buses, house the expanded bus fleet and hire additional bus drivers and mechanics."

Related legislation. AB 891 (Campos), substantially similar to this bill, was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file in 2015.

AB 379 (Gordon), Chapter 772, Statutes of 2015, makes complaints alleging violations of certain educational rights afforded to students who are homeless subject to the Uniform Complaint Procedures.

AB 1166 (Bloom), Chapter 171, Statutes of 2015, allows students in foster care and those who are homeless to be eligible for the exemption from local graduation requirements even if they are not notified of this right within 30 days of enrollment, and allows homeless students to be exempt even if they are no longer homeless or if they transfer to another school or district.

AB 1567 (Campos), also scheduled for today's hearing, prohibits an after school program from charging a fee to a family with a child identified as a homeless youth or a foster care youth and gives homeless and foster care youth priority for enrollment in state funded after school programs.

SB 445 (Liu), Chapter 289, Statutes of 2015, provides students who are homeless the right to remain in their schools of origin and the right to immediate enrollment.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Alliance for Boys and Men of Color

American Civil Liberties Union

California Catholic Conference

California Equity Leaders Network

California Immigrant Policy Center

California Pan-Ethnic Health Network

California School-Based Health Alliance

Children's Advocacy Institute

Children's Defense Fund (co-sponsor)

Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice

Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations

Comite Civico del Valle

Community Asset Development Redefining Education

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights

Greater Inglewood Reintegration Council

InnerCity Struggle

Larkin Street Youth Services

National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter

9to5, National Association of Working Women (co-sponsor)

Public Advocates

Public Counsel

Our Family Coalition

Rural County Representatives of California

Southbay Packers Youth Football and Cheer, Inc.

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

United Ways of California

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

Western Center on Law and Poverty (co-sponsor)

Women's Foundation of California

Youth Justice Coalition (co-sponsor)

Opposition

Association of California School Administrators

Orange County Department of Education

Santa Ana Unified School District

Analysis Prepared by: Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087