Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district or a charter school to hire or contract with at least one armed security guard or school resource officer, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm, to be present at each school of the school district or charter school during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts, districts and charter schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a school districts or charter schools costs of implementing this requirement shall be reimbursed as a state mandate and shall not be funded with the funding provided to school districts and charter schools pursuant to the local control funding formula.

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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district to hire or contract with at least one armed security guard, guard or school resource officer, as defined, authorized to carry a loaded firearm, firearm, to be present at each school of the school district. district during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a school districts costs of implementing this requirement shall be reimbursed as a state mandate and shall not be funded with the funding provided to school districts pursuant to the local control funding formula.

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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a security department under the supervision of a chief of security as designated by, and under the direction of, the superintendent of the school district. Existing law also authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police and to employ peace officers.

This bill would require a school district to hire or contract with at least one armed security guard, authorized to carry a loaded firearm, at each school of the school district. By imposing an additional requirement on school districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that a school districts costs of implementing this requirement shall be reimbursed as a state mandate and shall not be funded with the funding provided to school districts pursuant to the local control funding formula.

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 the statutory provisions noted above.

Date of Hearing: April 11, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2067

Author:(Gallagher) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2018

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

SUMMARY: This bill requires school districts and charter schools to ensure there is at least one armed school resource officer (SRO) present at each school during regular school hours and any other time when students are on campus. It also prohibits funding this requirement from the district or charter school’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) apportionment and specifies expenses are to be reimbursed as a state mandate.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Significant ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund potentially reimbursable mandate costs in the high hundreds of millions of dollars to over one billion dollars to school districts annually. (This estimate assumes each school pays their SRO between $75,000 to $100,000 annually to provide salary, benefits, and overtime to stay at the school during nonregular school hours. About 10,000 schools operate in California.) It is unclear what funds, if not LCFF, schools would use to pay the upfront costs of this requirement before potential reimbursement, as described below.
2. Significant ongoing costs to charter schools in the high tens of millions of dollars to a hundred million dollars annually. (This estimate assumes each school pays their SRO between $75,000 to $100,000 annually to provide salary, benefits, and overtime to stay at the school during nonregular school hours. About 1,200 charter schools operate in California.) The costs associated with this requirement would be absorbed locally since charters are ineligible to claim costs resulting from state mandates. However, the costs of this mandate could be offset for charters were this requirement added to the K-12 Mandate Block Grant, as described in more detail below. As with school districts, it is unclear what funds, if not LCFF, charter schools would use to pay for this requirement.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

This bill seeks to provide more protection on California public school campuses, and provides a mechanism to fund this need for all schools outside their allocated resources through the LCFF. Last year, California passed AB 424, which took discretion away from district superintendents and their ability to designate staff members possessing a valid carrying concealed weapon permit as campus security on school grounds. This has made school districts more vulnerable to gun violence and a soft target for individuals who do not follow our gun-control laws.

Prior to AB 424, school district superintendents had the discretion to designate an employee who had a licensed conceal-carry weapons permit to carry on campus and to provide security for schools with limited resources. This provision was essential to school districts that lacked the financial resources to establish their own on-campus school security or police department and could not afford to hire full time security guards or peace officers. Taking this resource away from superintendents was especially harmful to rural districts where local law enforcement departments are often miles away from schools. Most districts, especially rural districts, cannot afford these security options under their existing limited resources.

1. Current Practice. According to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, 18 school districts in California have established their own police departments and collectively employ 658 peace officers and reserve members. The Los Angeles Unified School District assigns armed peace officers to high schools and middle schools on a daily basis.
2. Funding SROs with LCFF. The bill prohibits schools from using their LCFF apportionment to fund armed officers on school sites and specifies such expenses be reimbursed as a state mandate. LCFF funding, however, is the primary source of general purpose funding schools could use for these purposes. It is unclear how schools would initially fund this requirement if not through their LCFF allocation.
3. State Mandate Costs and Charter Schools. In the area of K-12 education, only school districts and county offices of education may file mandate claims. Although some state-mandated activities also apply to charter schools, the Commission on State Mandates (CSM) deemed charter schools ineligible for reimbursement beginning in 2006. To address various concerns with the traditional mandate claims process, such as the disincentive for school districts to perform mandated tasks efficiently, the state created the K-12 Mandate Block Grant in the 2012-13 budget. The amount of funding available in the block grant annually is tied to the number of mandates the CSM has found to be reimbursable and the mandate’s statewide cost. (Typically, when the CSM has determined a claim filed by a school district to be reimbursable, it has developed a statewide cost estimate for performing the mandate and the state has added the estimated amount or a portion of the estimated amount to the block grant as part of its annual budget process.) School districts that choose to participate in the block grant program receive per-student funding to cover the cost of state-mandated activities in lieu of submitting ongoing mandate claims for reimbursement. Charter schools also may participate in the block grant, but they may not submit mandate claims or receive reimbursement for mandate costs.
4. Arguments in Support. The California Rifle and Pistol Association notes most school districts do not have the resources to employ full-time licensed and trained security personnel for each of their campuses. They note AB 2067 would require such personnel and would provide dedicated funding for this purpose.
5. Concerns. The California Association of School Business Officials notes the hiring of SROs for every school is a costly requirement and does not address other possible avenues for enhancing school safety.

Public Counsel contends there is no rigorous research demonstrating that having guards or police on a school campus results in better outcomes for students. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues such a presence makes students and families feel less safe. In addition, a 2016 report by the ACLU of California notes student-police interactions may be disproportionally impacting certain student groups.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 21, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2067 (

Author:Gallagher) – As Amended Ver:March 14, 2018

SUBJECT: School safety: armed security guards

SUMMARY: Requires school districts to ensure that there is at least one armed security guard or school resource officer (SRO) present at the school at all times when children are on campus. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a school district to hire, or contract for, at least one armed security guard, authorized to carry a loaded firearm, or one SRO for each school in the district.
2. Specifies that the armed security guard or SRO must be present at each school during regular school hours and any other time when pupils are present on campus.
3. Defines “school resource officer” as an individual who is a peace officer as defined in Chapter 4.5, commencing with Section 830 of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code and is employed by, or contracts to be assigned to, a school of a school district or a school district.
4. Requires that a school district’s cost of implementing these provisions be reimbursed as a state mandate and prohibits funding this requirement from the district’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) apportionment.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police, and to employ peace officers to ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils, and the security of the real and personal property of the school district. Specifies that persons employed and compensated as members of a police department of a school district, when appointed and duly sworn, are peace officers, for the purposes of carrying out their duties of employment (EC 38000 and 38001).
2. Authorizes the governing board of a 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 real and personal property of the school district. Expresses the intent of the Legislature that a school district security department is supplementary to city and county law enforcement agencies and is not vested with general police powers (EC 38000).
3. Requires every school security officer employed by a school district who works more than 20 hours a week as a school security officer to complete a course of training by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services in consultation with the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. If any school security officer subject to the requirements of this subdivision is required to carry a firearm while performing his or her duties, that school security officer shall additionally satisfy the training requirements of Section 832 of the Penal Code (EC 38001.5)
4. Defines “school 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 a 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 to the district and local law enforcement agencies (EC 38001.5).
5. Provides that any peace officer employed by a K-12 public school district who has completed training as prescribed shall be designated a school police officer (Penal Code 830.32).
6. Requires any school police officer first employed by a K–12 public school district to successfully complete a basic course of training before exercising the powers of a peace officer. Also requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to prepare a specialized course of instruction for the training of school peace officers to meet the unique safety needs of a school environment and for such officers to complete the specialized training within two years of the date of first employment (Penal Code 832.3).
7. Requires each school district or county office of education to be responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans for its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 through 12 (EC 32281).
8. Encourages that, as school safety plans are reviewed, plans be updated to include clear guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health professionals, community intervention professionals, school counselors, school resource officers, and police officers on school campuses, if the school district uses these people (EC 32282.1).

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

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author,

“This bill seeks to provide more protection on California public school campuses, and provides a mechanism to fund this need for all schools outside their allocated resources through the LCFF. Last year, California passed AB 424, which took discretion away from district superintendents and their ability to designate staff members possessing a valid carrying concealed weapon permit as campus security on school grounds. This has made school districts more vulnerable to gun violence and a soft target for individuals who do not follow our gun-control laws.

Prior to AB 424, school district superintendents had the discretion to designate an employee who had a licensed conceal-carry weapons permit to carry on campus and to provide security for schools with limited resources. This provision was essential to school districts that lacked the financial resources to establish their own on-campus school security or police department and could not afford to hire full time security guards or peace officers. Taking this resource away from superintendents was especially harmful to rural districts where local law enforcement departments are often miles away from schools. Most districts, especially rural districts, cannot afford these security options under their existing limited resources.”

The Role of Peace Officers on School Campuses. A safe school environment is critical to effective teaching and learning. Some school districts choose to enhance the safety of their schools by establishing a school police or security department, or by working with a city or county law enforcement agency to have school resource officers (SROs) assigned to one or more of the district’s schools. According to the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), 18 school districts in California have established their own police departments and collectively employ 658 peace officers and reserve members. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) assigns armed peace officers to high schools and middle schools on a daily basis. They also employ school safety officers who are non-armed civilians at middle schools. These officers receive additional training to support the police officers in creating safe educational environments.

According to the National Association of School Resource Officers, the role of SROs includes three primary responsibilities:

• Ensuring a safe and secure campus.
• Educating students about law-related topics.
• Mentoring students as counselors and role models.

In addition to traditional law enforcement duties such as searching a student suspected of carrying a weapon or investigating whether drugs have been brought onto campus, a SRO’s activities may also include a wide range of supportive activities and programs. Further, the Association notes that “the presence of an SRO, as a result of their law-enforcement activities and day-to-day visibility to and interaction with students and staff, supports a safe and orderly environment where students can feel safe and educators can feel supported in their determination to protect their students during the school day.”

Requirements for school security guards. According to the California Bureau of Security & Investigative Services (BSIS), all security guards or school security officers, under contract with a school district through a Private Patrol Operator, or employed by a school district more than 20 hours per week must complete a specified 24 hour training course developed by BSIS. In addition, a school security officer cannot be employed by a school district until they have submitted fingerprints to the district, are not prohibited from employment by a school district, or are not prohibited by the Department of Justice from possessing a firearm if the applicant is required to carry a firearm.

Requirements for school police or SROs. In contrast to the minimal training required of security guards, members of a school district police department or SROs assigned to a school site by a local law enforcement agency are sworn peace officers who have successfully completed a minimum of 800-1,200 hours of training in a police academy program in order to initially qualify as a peace officer and to carry firearms.

In California, SROs are required to take an additional training specific to law enforcement in an educational setting. The National Association of School Resource Officers offers The Basic School Resource Officer Course, a forty-hour block of instruction designed for any law enforcement officer with two years or less experience working in an educational environment. This course includes the following topics:

• Foundations of School-Based Law Enforcement
• Ethics and the SRO
• The SRO as a Teacher/Guest Speaker
• Diversity
• Understanding Special Needs Students
• Social Media
• School Law
• The SRO as an Informal Counselor/Mentor
• Understanding the Teen Brain
• Violence and Victimization: Challenges to Development
• Sex Trafficking of Youth
• Effects of Youth Trends and Drugs on the School Culture and Environment
• Threat Response: Preventing Violence in School Settings
• School Safety and Emergency Operations Plans
• Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

Committee staff recommends that the bill be amended to remove references to armed security guards in the provisions of the bill.

Concerns regarding law enforcement presence on school campuses. In recent years, concerns have been raised regarding the role of law enforcement officers on school campuses, as in some cases, police officers have become involved in administering disciplinary actions. Some contend that the increase in student-police interactions has resulted in thousands of students being pushed into the school-to-prison pipeline. A 2016 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California notes that student-police interactions may be disproportionally impacting certain student groups.

A 2014 U.S. Department of Education (DOE) publication, Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and Discipline notes that schools choosing to use school-based law enforcement officers should ensure that these officers’ roles are focused on protecting the physical safety of the school and preventing criminal conduct. The DOE further recommends that schools ensure that school-based law enforcement officers do not become involved in routine school disciplinary matters.

Alternative approaches to preventing school violence. Following the deadly shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, a group of over 200 universities, national education and mental health groups, school districts and more than 2,300 individual experts signed on to “A Call for Action to Prevent Gun Violence in the United States of America”. This document suggests that rather than having armed officers, metal detectors, or locked doors in schools, that the focus should be on prevention by improving the social and emotional health of the schools. Their eight point plan includes the following elements:

• A national requirement for all schools to assess school climate and maintain physically and emotionally safe conditions and positive school environments that protect all students and adults from bullying, discrimination, harassment, and assault.
• A ban on assault-style weapons, high-capacity ammunition clips, and products that modify semi-automatic firearms to enable them to function like automatic firearms.
• Adequate staffing (such as counselors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) of coordinated school- and community-based mental health services for individuals with risk factors for violence, recognizing that violence is not intrinsically a product of mental illness.
• Reform of school discipline to reduce exclusionary practices and foster positive social, behavioral, emotional, and academic success for students.
• Universal background checks to screen out violent offenders, persons who have been hospitalized for violence towards self or others, and persons on no-fly, terrorist watch lists.
• A national program to train and maintain school- and community-based threat assessment teams that include mental health and law enforcement partners. Threat assessment programs should include practical channels of communication for persons to report potential threats as well as interventions to resolve conflicts and assist troubled individuals.
• Removal of legal barriers to sharing safety-related information among educational, mental health, and law enforcement agencies in cases where a person has threatened violence.
• Laws establishing Gun Violence Protection Orders that allow courts to issue time-limited restraining orders requiring that firearms be recovered by law enforcement when there is evidence that an individual is planning to carry out acts against others or against themselves.

This document lays out a more comprehensive approach to preventing school violence, but among other things, requires significant investments in pupil support services.

California lags in providing social emotional support to pupils. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), “29 percent of California school districts have no counseling programs at all. When counseling programs exist, counselors are often asked to add administrative duties such as testing, supervising, and class scheduling. The ratio of students per counselor in this state averages 945 to 1, compared to the national average of 477 to 1, ranking California last in the nation.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics calls for a minimum of one full-time registered nurse in every school. According to the California School Nurses Organization, the distribution of school nurses by school district varies substantially throughout the state, with many schools having no school nurses on site. As of 2016-17, there were 2,630 credential school nurses in California. This clearly fails to meet the threshold of one teacher per school as there are more than 10,000 public K-12 schools in California.

According to CDE data for 2016-17, there were 5,932 school psychologists and 687 social workers employed in California schools. Clearly California lacks sufficient numbers of trained personnel in our schools to meet the social and emotional needs of over six million pupils.

Varying needs of schools. There are over 10,000 schools in California serving pupils in Kindergarten through 12^th grade. Schools vary significantly from one another in terms of factors such as the number of pupils served, the nature of the school climate, and the safety of the school setting. This bill would require at least one armed officer at each school in the state during school hours as well as the hours that pupils are on campus. As schools may offer before and after-school child care programs, extra-curricular activities, and/or athletic events and activities, this bill could lead to a need for the presence of an officer on campus for 12-16 hours per day in some situations. One could question whether an armed officer is warranted in every situation, regardless of the size of the school or the nature of the community and whether there are sufficient numbers of sworn peace officers available in California to staff 10,000 school sites for extended hours each school day. Committee staff recommends that very small schools and districts be exempted from the provisions of the bill.

The bill does not require charter schools to have an armed officer on site. Committee staff recommends that the bill be amended to apply to charter schools to ensure that all children attending California public schools have the same level of protection.

Funding armed officers on campuses. The bill prohibits a school district from using their Local Control and Funding Formula (LCFF) apportionment to fund armed officers on K-12 school sites and specifies that such expenses be reimbursed as a state mandate. Other than their LCFF funding, the only significant funding schools receive is specially designated funding for special education services, home-to-school transportation, or other federal funds for designated purposes. This creates a “Catch-22” situation: by prohibiting districts from expending LCFF funds for this purpose, there would be no mandated expenditure to be reimbursed.

This bill also creates a new mandate requiring the state to reimburse districts for the costs associated with deploying officers. This would require the Commission on State Mandates to determine the level of reimbursement for this purpose and districts would then be added to the queue of districts awaiting reimbursements for prior mandate claims. Many districts have opted to accept reimbursement through the mandate block grant rather than wait for reimbursement. There is no indication in the bill that this mandate would be added to the block grant, or if so, if there would be any additional funding allocated to the block grant to cover this very significant outlay of funds.

Arguments in support. The California Rifle and Pistol Association notes that, while some school districts have security or police departments, most school districts do not have the resources to employ full-time licensed and trained security personnel for each of their campuses. They note that AB 2067 would require such personnel and would provide dedicated funding for this purpose from the state’s general fund.

Arguments in opposition. The California Association of School Business Officials notes that the bill does not require specified training or qualifications to ensure that armed security guards know how to interact with students and educators. They also note that the hiring of armed guards for every school is a costly requirement and does not address other possible avenues for enhancing school safety.

Public Counsel contends that there is no rigorous research that demonstrates that having guards or police on a school campus results in better outcomes for students. ACLU argues that such a presence makes students and families feel less safe, not more so and that the presence of law enforcement at schools often results in incidents where police are called on to handle routine disciplinary matters, and in some cases resulting in the use of excessive force against students. They suggest that requiring an armed guard at every school is a step in the wrong direction.

Related and Prior legislation. AB 3205 (O’Donnell) would require indoor door locks on classrooms in schools built before 2012. This bill is pending referral to this committee.

AB 1747 (Rodriguez) of this Session expands the required elements of school safety plans, including procedures to deal with active shooter incidents and requires the CDE to provide additional guidance and oversight. The bill is pending before the Assembly Education Committee.

AB 424 (McCarty), Chapter 779, Statutes of 2017 deletes the authority of a school district superintendent or equivalent school authority to provide written permission for a person to possess a firearm within a school zone, and exempts sanctioned shooting sports or activities from the prohibition.

AB 202 (Donnelly) of the 2013 Session establishes the School Marshal Plan and authorizes school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to use general purpose funds to provide training for school marshals. Defines "school marshal" as a school employee who is authorized to possess a firearm at a schoolsite or designated school activities. This bill failed passage in the Assembly Education Committee.

AB 2368 (Block), Chapter 146, Statutes of 2012 authorizes the governing board of a school district to establish a school police department under the supervision of a school chief of police, and authorizes the employment of peace officers to ensure the safety of school district personnel and pupils, and the security of the real and personal property of the school district.

AB 549 (Jones-Sawyer), Chapter 422, Statutes of 2013 encourages schools to include in school safety plans, when plans are reviewed and updated, guidelines for the roles and responsibilities of mental health professionals, community intervention professionals, school counselors, school resource officers, and police officers on school campus, if the school district uses these people.

AB 1756 (Havice), Chapter 317, Statutes of 1998 establishes the School Community Policing Partnership Act of 1998 and authorizes the CDE to award grants on a competitive basis to county offices of education and school districts that develop and implement a system of providing safe and secure environments through community policing.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Rifle and Pistol Association

Opposition

American Civil Liberties Union of California

California Association of School Business Officials

Public Counsel

Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087