Existing law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, in kindergarten, and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, operated by school districts, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan, as provided. Existing law provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools, as provided.

Existing law, the Charter Schools Act of 1992, provides for the establishment and operation of charter schools, including countywide charter schools, and requires a petition for the establishment of a charter school to contain comprehensive descriptions of various matters and procedures, including procedures that the charter school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff. The act requires those procedures to also require the development of a school safety plan, as provided.

This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services to provide one-time grants to participating school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data, as provided, for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

Existing law requires all instructional materials adopted by the governing board of a school district to be accurate, objective, and current and suited to the needs and comprehension of pupils at their respective grade levels. Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, when adopting instructional materials, to include only instructional materials that accurately portray the cultural and racial diversity of society, as provided. Existing law requires the State Department of Education, no later than July 1, 2025, to develop guidance and public educational materials to ensure that all Californians can access information about educational laws and policies that safeguard the right to an accurate and inclusive curriculum.

This bill would instead require the department to develop the guidance and public educational materials by no later than July 1, 2026.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2816 (Gipson) - School safety: School Mapping Data Grant Program

Bill Summary:

This bill would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program, under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES), to provide one-time grants to participating local educational agencies (LEAs) to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

Fiscal Impact:

While the bill’s provisions would be contingent upon an appropriation, the OES indicates that if every entity were to receive a grant, it would result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs of $19.2 million. The OES also estimates General Fund costs of $1.2 million and 4.0 positions to administer the program. The bill specifies that OES may use 5 percent of grant funding for administrative costs

Background:

Existing law provides that LEAs are responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans for its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive in collaboration with school personnel, law enforcement, and first responders. The comprehensive school safety plans shall include an assessment of the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions and identification of appropriate strategies and programs to provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school’s procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; and rules and procedures on school discipline.

Proposed Law:

This bill establishes the School Mapping Data Grant Program Act and the School Mapping Data Grant Program, under the administration of the OES, to provide one-time grants to participating LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data. It requires the OES to determine the data requirements of a school mapping data program that is eligible to receive grant funding under the grant program.

This bill requires an that receives grant funding under the grant program to select, in collaboration with local public safety agencies, including, but not limited to, those providing law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services, a school mapping data program that meets the criteria established by the OES, and that meets the needs of public safety agencies and participating schools.

This bill allows the OES to expend up to 5 percent of any appropriation made for purposes of this article, on its administrative costs to implement and administer the grant program.

Related Legislation:

SB 906 (Portantino, Chapter 144, Statutes of 2022) requires a school official who is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat, as defined, to immediately report the threat or perceived threat to law enforcement.

SB 541 (Bates, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2019) requires the CDE to collect, and LEAs to provide, data pertaining to lockdown or multi-option response drills conducted at school sites and requires the CDE to submit a report to the Legislature relative to that data.

AB 1747 (Rodriguez, Chapter 806, Statutes of 2018) expands the required elements of school safety plans, including procedures to respond to active shooter situations, requires schools to conduct annual active shooter drills, and requires the CDE to provide additional guidance and oversight of safety plans.

Staff Comments:

According to information provided by the author, when first responders arrive where an emergency is taking place, it is likely they have never visited that location and are unfamiliar with the layout of the building. The author states: “AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state’s first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building.”

This bill would provide grants of an unspecified amount to LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Senator Bill Dodd

Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: 2816 Hearing Date: 6/25/2024

SUBJECT: School safety: School Mapping Data Grant Program

DIGEST: This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature, establishes the School Mapping Data Grant (SMDG) Program, under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES), to provide one-time grants to participating local education agencies (LEAs) for the purposes of entering into contracts with vendors providing school mapping data to assist public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, K-12 inclusive, operated by school districts, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan, as specified.
2. Provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of their schools, as specified.
3. The Charter Schools Act of 1992 provides for the establishment and operation of charter schools, including countywide charter schools, and requires a petition for the establishment of a charter school to contain comprehensive descriptions of various matters and procedures, including procedures that the charter school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff.
4. Requires those above mentioned procedures to also require the development of a school safety plan, as specified.
5. Establishes OES, within the office of the Governor and under the supervision of the Director of OES, and makes OES responsible for the state’s emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies.

This bill:

1. Establishes the SMDG Program, under the administration of OES, and requires OES to provide one-time grants to participating LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data.
2. Requires OES to determine the data requirements of a school mapping data program that is eligible to receive grant funding under the grant program.
3. Requires an LEA that receives grant funding under the SMDG Program to select, in collaboration with local public safety agencies, including, but not limited to, those providing law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services, a school mapping data program that meets the criteria established by OES and that meets the needs of public safety agencies and participating schools.
4. States that it is the intent of the Legislature that the grant funding provided pursuant to the SMDG Program is used to establish a single and verified source of school mapping data, for each participating school, that is standardized, accurate, and accessible to public safety agencies for purposes of ensuring efficient responses to on-campus emergencies at the school.
5. Authorizes OES to expend up to five percent of any appropriation made for the purposes of this bill on its administrative costs to implement and administer the SMDG Program.
6. Defines “school mapping data” or “data” to mean information provided to assist public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at participating schools.
7. Includes other various definitions for the purposes of the SMDG Program.
8. Provides that this bill shall only be implemented upon appropriation by the Legislature for its purposes in the annual Budget Act or another statute.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state’s first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building. It is time to keep our children safe.”

Shootings on K-12 School Campuses. The national scourge that is school shootings is, shamefully and horrifically, an almost uniquely American problem. According to World Population Review, an independent for-profit organization committed to delivering up-to-date global population data and demographics, the United States leads globally in school shootings, with 288 incidents from 2009 to 2018, far surpassing other countries experiencing the same style of attacks like Mexico and South Africa. Specifically, World Population Review reports the following data for that same time period:

1. United States – 288
2. Mexico – 8
3. South Africa – 6
4. Nigeria & Pakistan – 4
5. Afghanistan – 3
6. Brazil, Canada, France – 2
7. Azerbaijan, China, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Kenya, Russia, & Turkey – 1

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database, maintained by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate school, in 2023, there were 346 school shooting incidents across the country, meaning the U.S. averaged nearly one incident every day and saw its highest total on record since at least 1966. Further, from 2018 to 2023, 1,073 people were wounded or killed in school shooting incidents, or about 3.2 victims per one million people. In California during that same time period, 82 people were wounded or killed across 96 school shooting incidents, a rate of 2.1 per one million people.

The U.S. Secret Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) define a targeted attack or targeted violence as an attack that was planned for days, weeks, or months, serves a purpose, and seeks to accomplish objectives set by the attacker. Prior to 1998, targeted attacks in the U.S. were rare. According to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission Report, over the past two decades, nearly all targeted school attacks were carried out by current or former students.

School safety has been a major concern since April 20, 1999, when two students at Columbine High School in Colorado killed 12 students and a teacher, wounded 23 others, and then committed suicide. This tragic event was followed by other devastating shootings, including the 2012 attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, which resulted in the deaths of 26 students and educators, the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, with 17 fatalities, and the 2022 Uvalde, Texas school shooting, where 19 children aged nine to 11, and two adults were killed.

The K-12 School Shooting Database records incidents where a gun is brandished, fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason. The database has tracked such incidents since 1970. Between 2000 and 2021, there were 46 active shooter incidents at elementary and secondary schools. The FBI defines an active shooter as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”

Widespread Concerns and Preventative Measures Regarding School Shootings. Concerns about school shootings remain high among parents, students, and teachers. A 2018 survey by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) revealed that 73 percent of adults and 82 percent of public school parents were “very” or “somewhat concerned” about school shootings. Similarly, a 2018 Pew Research Center survey found that 57 percent of teenagers aged 13-17 and 63 percent of parents were at least somewhat worried about shootings in their schools.

Recent data continue to reflect these fears. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey highlighted that 59 percent of K-12 public school teachers are at least somewhat worried about school shootings, with 18 percent being “very” or “extremely” worried. Additionally, a signification portion of teachers, 23 percent, reported experiencing a gun-related lockdown during the 2022-23 school year, with higher rates among high school teachers and those in urban areas.

Retrieved: https://www.pewresearch.org

Sharing Data with Emergency Agencies and First Responders. In the aftermath of school shootings beginning with Columbine, schools have increasingly shared blueprints of their properties with law enforcement to aid in emergency responses. However, these maps can be outdated or inaccurate, which may delay response times during critical incidents. As a result, some states across the country are beginning to digitize school maps and provide them to local law enforcement to improve accuracy and accessibility.

For instance, the State of Iowa selected GeoComm to build indoor maps of every public school in the state. These maps can be used by emergency operators, dispatchers, and first responders to streamline response efforts and reduce time to key locations during emergencies. The maps provide valuable contextual information during an emergency, potentially saving lives. The maps are integrated into existing 9-1-1 and emergency responder apps, offering precise location information and enhancing situational awareness.

Does School Mapping Increase Risks? According to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee:

No one can disagree that, in the event of a catastrophe such as a school shooting, a fire, or an earthquake, real-time information from a school site would be invaluable in saving lives. But the provision of such information should be considered in light of very real cybersecurity risks presented.

As has been repeatedly and recently shown, public entities possess significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and are consequently vulnerable to cyberattack. The same is true of private companies that provide technology services to public entities. For example, security researchers recently found an unsecured U.S. Department of Defense server, hosted in Microsoft’s government cloud service, which exposed sensitive emails on the public internet (Whittaker, 2023). In other words, one of the country’s most sophisticated technology companies and its most well-funded federal agency were unable to ensure cybersecurity of sensitive information. Closer to home, security researchers found that the company implementing California digital license plates, as authorized by AB 984, Chap. 746, Stats. 2022, had a security vulnerability “giving access to GPS location and all information of registered users: this info includes ‘vehicles people owned, their physical address, phone number, and email address’” (Rodríguez, 2023). Luckily, in both of these cases, the companies involved were able to close the identified vulnerabilities before they were hacked. But other entities have not been so fortunate (Jones, 2023).

It stands to reason that school districts, software providers, and law enforcement agencies involved in implementing this bill could be hacked. Such a hack might allow a school shooter to glean information about school vulnerabilities that could facilitate a more-deadly attack. None of this is to say that the cybersecurity risks involved outweigh the benefits of the bill; simply, that they ought to be considered in order to ensure a complete assessment of the bill’s strengths and weaknesses.

Optimizing School Mapping Programs. As discussed above, several states have already undertaken initiatives to digitize school maps to improve accuracy and timeliness of emergency responses. For example, 11 states including Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin unanimously passed bipartisan critical incident mapping laws or initiatives for schools, and more than 20 states in total have enacted or proposed digital school mapping measures in the past few years.

According to an Associated Press article titled “School shootings prompt more states to fund digital maps for first responders,” Critical Response Group has been driving the trend. Run by an Army special operations veteran, “[t]he New Jersey-based company’s CEO Mike Rodgers recently told lawmakers in Maryland how he used gridded digital maps during deployments and was surprised the school where his wife taught had nothing similar. So he mapped her school, then expanded – to 12,000 schools and counting, nationwide.”

The article goes on to note that, “[m]any of the state laws and bills contain nearly identical wording championed by Rodgers’ company. They require verification by a walk-through of each campus and free compatibility with any software already used by local schools and public safety agencies. They must be overlaid with aerial imagery and gridded coordinates, ‘oriented true north’ and ‘contain site-specific labeling’ for rooms, doors, hallways, stairwells, utility locations, hazards, key boxes, trauma kits and automated external defibrillators.”

Additionally, the articles states that the “New Jersey law required ‘critical incident mapping data,’ a phrase that Critical Response Group tried to trademark. Critical Response Group has hired lobbyists in more than 20 states to advocate for specific standards, according to an AP review of state lobbying records. Competitors also have engaged lobbyists to wrangle over the precise wording. In some states, lawmakers have gone with a more generic label of ‘school mapping data.’

“Four companies offering digital mapping among their services – Critical Response Group, Centegix, GeoComm and Navigate360 – have together spent more than $1.4 million on lobbyists in 15 states, according to an AP analysis. Their costs are unknown in some states where lobbyist payments aren’t publicly reported.”

In a letter indicating “support if amended,” GeoComm encourages addressing the following items:

1. Ownership of the data should be retained by the building owner with full rights to copy, display, distribute, transmit and adapt for all lawful purposes including sharing with government and/or private entities that are providing or supporting emergency services.
2. Sharing of the data should be done via a secured and authenticated application programming interface (API) and go through an approval process to alleviate any data or privacy concerns.
3. Symbology should adhere to the National Association of Public Safety GIS (NAPSG) guidelines to ensure consistency across the emergency communications ecosystem.
4. The map data should have ability to provide near-real time updates by building owners where changes are automatically disseminated to emergency responders and 9-1-1 mapping applications using existing data standards in order to ensure the most up-to-date information.
5. The data must be compatible with the National Emergency Number Association’s latest Civic Location Data Exchange Format (CLDXF) standard to ensure interoperability with 9-1-1 and other public safety applications.

School Mapping Data Grant Program. The current version of the bill establishes the SMDG Program, under the administration of OES, to provide one-time grants to participating LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data. The bill does not define “qualified vendor” however it does requires that OES determine the data requirements of a school mapping data program that is eligible to receive grant funding under the SMDG Program. Operation of this bill is contingent upon appropriation by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act or another statute.

This bill would require an LEA that receives grant funding under the SMDG Program to select, in collaboration with local public safety agencies, including but not limited to, law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services, a school mapping data program that meets the criteria established by OES, and that meets the needs of public safety agencies and participating schools. A previous version of this bill was more prescriptive regarding the data requirements that a contracted vendor would have to meet.

Finally, this bill establishes that it is the intent of the Legislature that the grant funding provided pursuant to this bill is used to establish a single and verified source of school mapping data, for each participating school, that is standardized, accurate, and accessible to public safety agencies for the purposes of ensuring efficient responses to on-campus emergencies at the school.

Prior/Related Legislation

AB 960 (Mathis, 2024) encourages each public school, including charter schools, with an enrollment of 100 pupils or more, on or before July 1, 2030, to implement a web-based or app-based school safety program, as specified. (Pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee)

SB 671 (Portantino, Chapter 626, Statutes of 2023) requires the safety plans of LEAs, county offices of education, and charter schools to include procedures to assess and respond to reports of any dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity that is being conducted or threatened to be conducted at the school, at an activity sponsored by the school, or on a school bus serving the school, as specified.

AB 1499 (Flora, 2019) would have created a new grant program for communication interoperability systems – systems that allow emergency responders and schools to better communicate with each other – on campuses of K-12 schools, community colleges, and public colleges and universities. (Held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File)

AB 1548 (Gabriel, Chapter 734, Statutes of 2019) established the California State Nonprofit Security Grant Program to improve the physical security of nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack due to ideology, beliefs, or mission.

AB 1747 (Rodriguez, Chapter 806, Statues of 2018) expanded the required elements of school safety plans, including procedures to respond to active shooter situations, requires schools to conduct annual active shooter drills, and requires the California Department of Education to provide additional guidance and oversight of safety plans.

AB 3205 (O’Donnell, Chapter 401, Statutes of 2018) requires school districts to install indoor classroom locks in schools built before 2012.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT:

California Police Chiefs Association

GeoComm

Peace Officers’ Research Association of California

OPPOSITION:

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: In support of the bill, the Peace Officers’ Research Association of California writes that, “[c]urrent law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, in kindergarten, and grades 1 to 12 inclusive, operated by school districts, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan, as provided. Current law provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools. This bill would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services to provide one-time grants to participating school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.”

DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Education Committee (7-0) & Senate Governmental Organization Committee

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Josh Newman, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2816 Hearing Date: June 12, 2024

Subject: School safety: School Mapping Data Grant Program.

NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Governmental Organization. A "do pass" motion should include referral to the Committee on Governmental Organization.

SUMMARY

This bill, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to provide one-time grants to participating local educational agencies (LEA), county offices of education (COE), and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data, as provided, for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

BACKGROUND

Existing Law:

Existing Federal Law

1. Federal law encourages the development and deployment of effective anti-terrorism products and services by providing liability protections through the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act). (Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296)
2. Federal law protects the privacy of student education records through the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 2001. (20 United States Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 1232g)

Existing State Law

1. Provides that each LEA and COE is responsible for the overall development of all comprehensive school safety plans for its schools operating kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive in collaboration with school personnel, law enforcement, and first responders. (Education Code (EC) § 32281 (a))
2. Requires that the comprehensive school safety plans (CSSP) include an assessment of the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions and identification of appropriate strategies and programs to provide or maintain a high level of school safety and address the school’s procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety, including child abuse reporting procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; and rules and procedures on school discipline. (EC § 32282)
3. 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 employs these professionals. (EC § 32282.1)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

1. Establishes the School Mapping Data Grant Program Act and the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the OES to provide one-time grants to participating LEAs, COEs, and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data.
2. Requires the OES to determine the data requirements of a school mapping data program that is eligible to receive grant funding under the grant program.
3. Requires an LEA, COE, and charter school that receives grant funding under the grant program to select, in collaboration with local public safety agencies, including, but not limited to, those providing law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services, a school mapping data program that meets the criteria established by the OES, and that meets the needs of public safety agencies and participating schools.
4. Allows the OES to expend up to 5 percent of any appropriation made for purposes of this article, on its administrative costs to implement and administer the grant program.
5. States it is the intent that the grant funding provided pursuant to this article is used to establish a single and verified source of school mapping data, for each participating school, that is standardized, accurate, and accessible to public safety agencies for purposes of ensuring efficient responses to on-campus emergencies at the school.
6. Makes various definitions, including “School mapping data” or “data,” which means the information provided to assist public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at participating schools.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state’s first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building. It is time to keep our children safe.”
2. Fear of School Shootings. According to a 2018 study by the Pew Research Center, the majority of U.S. teens fear a shooting could happen at their school, and most parents share their concerns. Firearms are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and accounted for more than 36,000 deaths and nearly 85,000 injuries in 2015. In 2020, California saw a troubling rise of more than 500 homicides, the largest jump in state history since record-keeping began in 1960. Gun homicides drive the rise. California saw 1,658 homicides in 2019; the number climbed to 2,161 in 2020—an increase of 503 homicides (or 30.3%). Of the 503 additional homicides, 460, or 91%, were gun related deaths. While the 2020 homicide rate is far lower than past peaks, the past year deviates from historically low rates of the last decade. Over the past few years, gun violence has risen to the forefront of public consciousness. The consequences of gun violence are more pervasive and affect entire communities, families, and children. With more than 25% of children witnessing an act of violence in their homes, schools, or community over the past year, and more than 5% witnessing a shooting. A 2004 report by the United States Secret Service and United States Department of Education found that over two-thirds of school shooters acquired the gun (or guns) used in their attacks from their own home or that of a relative (68%).
3. School Violence Prevention. An audit by the California State Auditor, released in 2017, cited FBI data showing that the number of active shooter incidents increased between 2000 and 2015. Kindergarten through grade 12 facilities and higher education institutions were identified as the second most common locations for these shootings to occur both nationally and within California. A survey of public school districts and COEs in California suggested that the number of active shooter threats and incidents in and around the state's schools had increased since the academic year 2012–13.

The report noted that state law does not require schools to include procedures for responding to active shooter events in their school safety plans. The audit also found deficiencies in oversight and guidance by district and COEs and at the state level by California Department of Education (CDE). Some schools have failed to meet the requirement to review safety plans annually.

Since the release of that report, legislation has been enacted in California, requiring schools to expand the required elements of the CSSP. LEAs, COEs, and charter schools serving kindergarten through 12^th students must create and maintain a CSSP to address campus risks, prepare for emergencies, and ensure a safe and secure learning environment for students and school staff. The law mandates that designated stakeholders engage in an annual systematic planning process to develop strategies and policies to prevent and respond to potential incidents such as emergencies, natural disasters, hate crimes, violence, active assailants/intruders, bullying and cyberbullying, discrimination, harassment, child abuse and neglect, discipline, suspension, expulsion, and other safety concerns. Each school must update and adopt its CSSP by March 1 every year. Before adoption, the schoolsite council or safety planning committee must hold a public meeting at the schoolsite to allow public members to express their opinions about the school safety plan.

In addition to creating child abuse reporting procedures; disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; a discrimination and harassment policy; the provisions of any schoolwide dress code; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; and rules and procedures on school discipline, including procedures to respond to active shooter situations. Schools are now also required to conduct annual active shooter drills, and the CDE will provide additional guidance and oversight of safety plans.

1. Chances For Information to be Compromised? Any organization with electronic records is vulnerable to security breaches, and education agencies are no exception.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office, “Kindergarten through grade 12 schools have reported significant educational impact due to cybersecurity incidents, such as ransomware attacks. Cyberattacks can also cause monetary losses for targeted schools due to the downtime and resources needed to recover from incidents. Officials from state and local entities reported that the loss of learning following a cyberattack ranged from 3 days to 3 weeks, and recovery time ranged from 2 to 9 months.”

In addition to ransomware attacks across school districts across the nation, California school districts have also faced major breaches of sensitive student information. In 2023, Los Angeles Unified School District’s highly sensitive health records, including psychological evaluations, of about 2,000 students were leaked because of the ransomware attack that hit the Los Angeles Unified School District last year. Approximately 2,000 student assessment records have been confirmed as part of the attack, 60 of whom are currently enrolled, as well as driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers. In another cyber security attack, San Diego and Sweetwater—the two largest districts in the county—have suffered from cybersecurity incidents in 2023. Sweetwater Union High School District, between February 11 and 12, were able to confirm that the unauthorized person accessed and took sensitive files from the district’s network systems including the personal information of current and former employees, dependents, students, families, and others. In another part of the State, just earlier this year, International cyber criminals have successfully targeted Merced County schools, compromising internal data and forcing some districts to pay a hefty price to get those attacks resolved.

1. Related Legislation

AB 960 (Mathis, 2024) encourages each public school, including charter schools, with an enrollment of 100 pupils or more, on or before July 1, 2030, to implement a web-based or app-based school safety program, as specified.

SB 541 (Bates, Chapter 786, Statutes of 2019) requires the CDE to collect, and LEAs to provide, data pertaining to lockdown or multi-option response drills conducted at school sites and requires the CDE to submit a report to the Legislature relative to that data.

AB 1747 (Rodriguez, Chapter 806, Statutes of 2018) expands the required elements of school safety plans, including procedures to respond to active shooter situations, requires schools to conduct annual active shooter drills, and requires the CDE to provide additional guidance and oversight of safety plans.

SB 906 (Portantino, Chapter 144, Statutes of 2022) requires a school official who is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat, as defined, to immediately report the threat or perceived threat to law enforcement. SB 906 requires the local law enforcement agency or the schoolsite police, as appropriate, with the support of the LEA, to immediately conduct an investigation and assessment of any threat or perceived threat.

SUPPORT

None received

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2816

Author:(Gipson)

As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the School Mapping Grant Program, under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES), to provide one-time grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to contract with vendors for school mapping data, subject to an appropriation for this purpose.

Major Provisions

1. Establishes the School Mapping Grant Program, under the administration of the OES, to provide one-time grants to LEAs to contract with vendors for school mapping data, subject to an appropriation for this purpose
2. Expresses the intent of the Legislature that grant funding be used to establish a single verified source of school mapping data for each school that is standardized, accurate, and accessible to public safety agencies for ensuring efficient responses to emergencies at the school.
3. Requires the OES to determine the data requirements of a school mapping data program eligible to receive grant funding under this program.
4. Requires an LEA receiving grant funding under this program to select, in collaboration with local public safety agencies, including but not limited to, those providing law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services, a school mapping data program that meets the criteria established by the OES and that meets the needs of the public safety agencies and participating schools.
5. Authorizes the OES to expend up to 5% of any appropriation on its administrative costs to implement and administer the grant program.

COMMENTS

Sharing data with emergency agencies. In many cases, schools share blueprints with law enforcement, a precaution dating back to the aftermath of the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Police, firefighters, and emergency technicians often reference those maps when responding to school emergencies. But law enforcement and school safety experts say the maps are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date, potentially lengthening emergency response times.

Some states are adopting initiatives to digitize school maps and provide them to local law enforcement. However, cost and limited awareness remain barriers to adoption for many schools according to school safety experts. They also note that new mapping initiatives have not been studied or evaluated the way that other school safety measures have. A digital or critical incident map by a third-party contractor can cost up to $5,000 and may require schools to invest in costly software and other tools. (Dewey, 2022)

According to the Author

"AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state's first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building."

Arguments in Support

The Peace Officers’ Research Association of California (PORAC) writes, "Current law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, in kindergarten, and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, operated by school districts, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan. This bill would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services to provide one-time grants to participating school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

PORAC originally had an opposed unless amended position on this measure. We have continued to work with Assemblymember Gipson and his staff and they have agreed to accept PORAC's recommended changes to the bill. In light of our agreement, PORAC is changing our opposed unless amended position to support."

Arguments in Opposition

None on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs, potentially in the millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars, to map public schools in California.

Mapping industry experts indicate it costs about $4,000 to map a school. The state has over 10,000 schools.

1. One-time General Fund costs to OES to administer the grant program. The bill specifies OES may use 5% of grant funding for administrative costs. If the grant program provided funding of $5 million to schools, OES could use up to $250,000 for administration.

VOTES

ASM EDUCATION: 6-0-1

YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Bonta, Flora, Hoover

ABS, ABST OR NV: McCarty

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 29, 2024

CONSULTANT: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0003128

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2816

Author:(Gipson) – As Amended Ver:April 29, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill, subject to appropriation, establishes the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES) to provide one-time grants to participating local educational agencies (LEAs) to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund or General Fund costs, potentially in the millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars, to map public schools in California.

Mapping industry experts indicate it costs about $4,000 to map a school. The state has over 10,000 schools.

1. One-time General Fund costs to OES to administer the grant program. The bills specifies OES may use 5% of grant funding for administrative costs. If the grant program provided funding of $5 million to schools, OES could use up to $250,000 for administration.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to information provided by the author, emergency responders may not have the layout of the building to which they are responding to, making them less effective. The author states:

AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state’s first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building.

1. Background. Increases in emergency incidents in schools, such as school shootings, have led to schools taking various safety precautions, such as installing fences around school perimeters, performing school shooting drills, and installing interior locks on classroom doors. Schools also often share school building blueprints with law enforcement. Police, firefighters, and emergency technicians often reference those maps when responding to school emergencies. However, law enforcement and school safety experts say the maps are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date, potentially lengthening emergency response times.

Some states are beginning to adopt initiatives to digitize school maps and provide them to local law enforcement. This bill provides grants to LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

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

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Al Muratsuchi, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2816 (

Author:Gipson) – As Amended Ver:March 7, 2024

SUBJECT: School safety: School Mapping Data Grant Program

SUMMARY: Establishes the School Mapping Grant Program, under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services (OES), to provide one-time grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to contract with vendors for school mapping data, subject to an appropriation for this purpose. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the School Mapping Grant Program (Program) under the administration of the OES.
2. Authorizes the OES to provide one-time grants to participating LEAs to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data.
3. Requires that school mapping data provided by a contracted vendor under the Program to meet all of the following requirements:
4. Is viewable within software platforms used by public safety agencies, and does not require the public safety agency to purchase additional software or pay a fee to view or access the data;
5. Is viewable within security software platforms used by the participating school, and does not require local law enforcement agencies or the LEA to purchase additional software or pay a fee to view or access the data;
6. Is available in a printable format, and, if requested by a public safety agency or the LEA, in a digital file format that can be integrated into software platforms;
7. Is verified by the vendor for accuracy by a walk-through of the school’s buildings and grounds;
8. Is oriented to true North;
9. Includes accurate floor plans overlaid on current aerial imagery of the school campus as verified by the vendor;
10. Contains site-specific labeling that matches the structure of the school’s buildings, including room labels, hallway names, external door or stairwell numbers, and the locations of hazards, critical utilities, key boxes, automated external defibrillators, and trauma kits;
11. Contains site-specific labeling that matches the school’s grounds, including parking areas, athletic fields, surrounding roads, and neighboring properties;
12. Is overlaid with gridded x and y coordinates;
13. Is not modified or updated independently without corresponding updates being made to the data maintained in the software platforms used by public safety agencies; and
14. Is provided to public safety agencies and the LEA perpetually and at no cost to the public safety agencies or the LEA.
15. Authorizes the OES to expend up to 5% of any appropriation made for this purpose on its administrative costs to implement and administer the Program.
16. Requires that the Program be implemented only if an appropriation is made by the Legislature for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or another statute.
17. Defines the following terms for the purposes of the Program:
18. “Local educational agency” means a school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school;
19. “Public safety agency” means a local, state, or federal agency that provides emergency public safety services to participating schools;
20. “School mapping data” or “data” means information provided to assist public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at participating schools; and
21. “School” means a school maintained by an LEA.
22. Expresses the intent of the Legislature that the grant funding under this Program be used to establish a single and verified source of school mapping data, for each participating school, that is standardized, accurate, and accessible to public safety agencies for purposes of ensuring efficient responses to on-campus emergencies at the school.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires each school district and COE 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, and specifies that the school site council or a school safety planning committee is responsible for developing the comprehensive school safety plan. (Education Code (EC) 32281)
2. Requires that the comprehensive school safety plan include an assessment of the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions and identification of appropriate strategies and programs to provide or maintain a high level of school safety, and address the school’s procedures for complying with existing laws related to school safety, including, but not limited to, disaster procedures; an earthquake emergency procedure system; policies regarding pupils who commit specified acts that would lead to suspension or expulsion; procedures to notify teachers of dangerous pupils; procedures for safe ingress and egress of pupils, parents, and school employees to and from school; a safe and orderly environment conducive to learning; and procedures for conducting tactical responses to criminal incidents, including procedures related to individuals with guns on school campuses and at school-related functions. (EC 32282)
3. Requires the schoolsite council to consult with a representative from a law enforcement agency, a fire department, and other first responder entities in the writing and development of the comprehensive school safety plan. Requires the comprehensive school safety plan and any updates to the plan to be shared with the law enforcement agency, the fire department, and the other first responder entities. (EC 32281)
4. Authorizes the portions of a school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents to be developed by school district or COE administrators in consultation with law enforcement officials and with a representative of an exclusive bargaining unit of school district or COE employees, if they choose to participate. Authorizes the school district or COE to elect not to disclose those portions of the comprehensive school safety plan that include tactical responses to criminal incidents. (EC 32281)
5. Defines “tactical responses to criminal incidents” as steps taken to safeguard pupils and staff, to secure the affected school premises, and to apprehend the criminal perpetrators. (EC 32281)
6. Requires the petition to establish a charter school to include the development of a school safety plan with specified safety topics, including procedures for conducting tactical responses to criminal incidents. (EC 47605 and 47605.5)
7. Federal law encourages the development and deployment of effective anti-terrorism products and services by providing liability protections through the Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY Act). (Subtitle G of Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296)
8. Federal law protects the privacy of student education records through the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 2001. (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1232g)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 2816 will ensure safety on our K-12 campuses by providing our first responders with the technology and tools necessary to navigate the campus in the event of an emergency. In situations of life and death, every second matters. We need to provide emergency school mapping technology for our state’s first responders to efficiently navigate and communicate, through an unfamiliar building.”

Further information provided by the author suggests that emergency responders most often do not have the layout of the building they are responding to. When first responders arrive at the scene, they may not have visited that location and may be unfamiliar with the facility’s layout.

Violent incidents on K-12 school campuses. The U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) define a targeted attack or targeted violence as an attack that was planned for days, weeks, or months, serves a purpose, and seeks to accomplish objectives set by the attacker. Prior to 1998, targeted attacks were rare within the U.S. During the last 20 years, almost all targeted attacks at schools were perpetrated by students or former students. (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission Report, 2019).

Since April 20, 1999, when two high school students killed 12 students and 1 teacher and wounded 23 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School in Colorado, school safety has been a major concern in schools across the country. Since then, more shootings have taken place at schoolsites, including Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut in 2012 in which 26 students and educators were killed, the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida with 17 casualties, and the Uvalde, Texas school shooting in 2022 in which 19 children and 2 adults were killed.

The K-12 School Shooting Database, maintained by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School, documents when a gun is brandished, is fired, or a bullet hits school property for any reason. The database tracks incidents at K-12 schools since 1970. Between 2000-01 and 2020-21, the number of school shootings with casualties ranged from 11 to 93 per year. From 2000 to 2021, there were a total of 46 active shooter incidents at elementary and secondary schools. The FBI defines an active shooter as “one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area.”

According to the National Center for Education Statistics:

• During the 2019–20 school year, 77% of public schools recorded that one or more incidents of crime had taken place, amounting to 1.4 million incidents. This translates to a rate of 29 incidents per 1,000 students enrolled in 2019–20;
• In 2019–20, 47% of schools reported one or more incidents of crime to sworn law enforcement, amounting to 482,400 incidents, or 10 incidents per 1,000 students enrolled;
• In 2019, about 5% of students ages 12–18 reported that they had been afraid of an attack or harm at school during the school year;
• In 2021–22, the number of school shootings with casualties (188) was more than twice as high as the next highest number of documented shootings (93), which was documented the year before in 2020–21; and
• In 2021-22, of the 188 school shootings with casualties, there were 57 school shootings with deaths and 131 with injuries.

Polls indicate fear of school shootings. A 2018 Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) survey found that 73% of adults and 82% of public school parents say they are “very” or “somewhat concerned” about school shootings. Similarly, a 2018 Pew Research Center survey of parents and teenagers found 57% of teenagers aged 13-17 were “very worried” or “somewhat worried” about a shooting in their schools and 63% of parents were at least somewhat worried about the possibility of a shooting happening at their child’s school.

Responding to threats of school violence. Numerous commissions have been established in response to school shootings and have developed recommendations to prevent and/or respond to such incidents. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission recommendations include the following:

• Interoperable communication to facilitate rapid deployment of first responders;
• Implementing programs to develop a safe school culture, including threat assessment teams and an anonymous tip telephone line;
• Information related to juveniles should be shared among law enforcement, courts, probation, schools, social services and mental health agencies;
• Programs aimed at peer reporting should be implemented as peers are the most likely source of information;
• Gun violence by youth often involves weapons from home, and home security for weapons should be strengthened;
• Increasing background checks related to firearm purchase and ownership as well as mandatory registration of firearms;
• A statewide common database that includes school floor plans should be developed and accessible to planners and first responders; and
• Classroom and safe-haven areas that lock from the inside. (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission Report, 2019)

Sharing data with emergency agencies. In many cases, schools share blueprints with law enforcement, a precaution dating back to the aftermath of the Columbine High School shooting in 1999. Police, firefighters, and emergency technicians often reference those maps when responding to school emergencies. But law enforcement and school safety experts say the maps are frequently inaccurate and out-of-date, potentially lengthening emergency response times.

Some states are adopting initiatives to digitize school maps and provide them to local law enforcement. However, cost and limited awareness remain barriers to adoption for many schools according to school safety experts. They also note that new mapping initiatives have not been studied or evaluated the way that other school safety measures have. A digital or critical incident map by a third-party contractor can cost up to $5,000 and may require schools to invest in costly software and other tools. (Dewey, 2022)

Would the availability of school mapping data increase safety risks? According to the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee:

No one can disagree that, in the event of a catastrophe such as a school shooting, a fire, or an earthquake, real-time information from a school site would be invaluable in saving lives. But the provision of such information should be considered in light of very real cybersecurity risks presented.

As has been repeatedly and recently shown, public entities possess significant cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and are consequently vulnerable to cyberattack. The same is true of private companies that provide technology services to public entities. For example, security researchers recently found an unsecured U.S. Department of Defense server, hosted in Microsoft’s government cloud service, which exposed sensitive emails on the public internet. (Whittaker, 2023). In other words, one of the country’s most sophisticated technology companies and its most well-funded federal agency were unable to ensure cybersecurity of sensitive information. Closer to home, security researchers found that the company implementing California digital license plates, as authorized by AB 984, Chap. 746, Stats. 2022, had a security vulnerability “giving access to GPS location and all information of registered users: this info includes ‘vehicles people owned, their physical address, phone number, and email address.’” (Rodríguez, 2023). Luckily, in both of these cases, the companies involved were able to close the identified vulnerabilities before they were hacked. But other entities have not been so fortunate. (Jones, 2023).

It stands to reason that school districts, software providers, and law enforcement agencies involved in implementing this bill could be hacked. Such a hack might allow a school shooter to glean information about school vulnerabilities that could facilitate a more-deadly attack. None of this is to say that the cybersecurity risks involved outweigh the benefits of the bill; simply, that they ought to be considered in order to ensure a complete assessment of the bill’s strengths and weaknesses.

Identifying the appropriate elements of a school mapping program. This bill lays requires specific elements to be included in a school mapping program provided by a contracted vendor. The Committee may wish to consider whether it is possible for the Legislature to determine the appropriateness of these particular elements or if the specifications should be left to school safety experts to determine. It is not clear whether OES or the California Department of Education (CDE) would have the necessary expertise in-house to identify appropriate criteria for a school mapping program.

In expressing a “support if amended” position, GeoComm recommends that a multitude of vendors and stakeholders familiar with school safety and mapping should be consulted as the requirements stated in the bill may not reflect the needs of public safety emergency communications.

Recommended Committee Amendments. Staff recommend that the bill be amended as follows:

1. Delete the specific requirements of a school mapping program and require the OES to identify the criteria to be used to identify school mapping programs eligible for funding under this program.
2. Require LEAs receiving grants under this program to collaborate with local public safety agencies, including but not limited to, those providing law enforcement, firefighting, or other emergency services in selecting and implementing a school mapping program to ensure that it meets the needs of both the schools and the public safety agencies.

Arguments in support. The Peace Officers’ Research Association of California (PORAC) writes, “Current law provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that all public schools, in kindergarten, and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, operated by school districts, in cooperation with specified entities and individuals, develop a comprehensive school safety plan. This bill would establish the School Mapping Data Grant Program under the administration of the Office of Emergency Services to provide one-time grants to participating school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to enter into contracts with qualified vendors providing school mapping data for purposes of assisting public safety agencies in efficiently responding to on-campus emergencies at schools.

PORAC originally had an opposed unless amended position on this measure. We have continued to work with Assemblymember Gipson and his staff and they have agreed to accept PORAC’s recommended changes to the bill. In light of our agreement, PORAC is changing our opposed unless amended position to support.

Related legislation. AB 960 (Mathis) of the 2023-24 Session would encourage public schools, including charter schools, with an enrollment of 100 pupils or more to implement a web-based or app-based school safety program that includes specified parameters. Would also require that, if a school implements a web-based or app-based school safety program, the school ensure that best practices are implemented to protect the security and data of all pupils and staff, and requires that specified information in the program be exempt from disclosure requirements.

SB 671 (Portantino), Chapter 626, Statutes of 2023, requires the safety plans of LEAs, COEs, and charter schools to include procedures to assess and respond to reports of any dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity that is being conducted or threatened to be conducted at the school, at an activity sponsored by the school, or on a school bus serving the school.

SB 643 (Wilk) of the 2023-24 Session would have established the School Safety Division within the CDE and required the division to administer the Safe-To-Tell Program to receive anonymous reports of dangerous, violent, or unlawful activity. Would also have required LEAs to establish school-based teams of at least three members of the administrative staff at each of its schools to receive notice of reports, and requires the Safe-to-Tell advisory committee to provide an annual report to the Governor and Legislature. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.

AB 1888 (Flora) of the 2021-22 Session would have required the City of Fresno and the Fresno Unified School District, in collaboration with the California College and University Police Chiefs Association, to establish a pilot real-time active shooter and mass emergency coordinated response program for LEAs, community colleges, and the California State University Fresno, to provide a real-time cross-agency communication solution. This bill was held in the Assembly Education Committee.

AB 1499 (Flora) of the 2019-20 Session would have required the California OES to create a new grant program for communication interoperability systems (systems that allow emergency responders and schools to better communicate with each other) on the campuses of K-12 schools, community colleges, and public colleges and universities. This bill was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1747 (Rodriguez), Chapter 806, Statutes of 2018, expands the required elements of school safety plans, to include procedures to respond to active shooter situations; requires schools to conduct annual active shooter drills; and requires the CDE to provide additional guidance and oversight of safety plans.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Peace Officers’ Research Association of California

Opposition

None

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