School Safety Program Oversight Committee annual report

              JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
FINAL REPORT
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
FINAL REPORT
ESTABLISHMENT
The Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety was established in Laws 1994,
chapter 201, section 23. The committee's charge was to review school district
applications from schools and select the districts that were eligible to receive funding
for participation in the School Safety Program.
The School Safety Program was established pursuant to Laws 1994, chapter 201,
section 25 and was continued pursuant to Laws 1995, chapter 158, section 5. These
sections prescribed the method by which school districts applied to the committee and
defined the content of the School Safety Program.
The funding to place probation officers and peace officers in schools for the School
Safety Program was appropriated in Laws 1994, chapter 201, section 33; Laws 1995,
chapter 158, section 10; Laws 1995, chapter 1, section 7.
Appendix A contains the complete text of the enabling legislation.
MEMBERSHIP
The committee was comprised of the following 10 members:
Senate House
Senator Patricia Noland, Co- Chair Representative Tom Smith, Co- Chair
Senator Robert Chastain Representative Robert McLendon
Public Members
Maria Baier, Governor's Designee
Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation
Jaime Molera, Superintendent of Public Instruction's Designee
Officer Stan Morrow, Mesa Police Department
Lynda Rando, Director, Center for Law Related Education
Nancy Kloss, Principal, North High School
t Staff
Dominica Minore, Legislative Research Analyst
# House of Representatives Judiciary Committee
Joni Hoffman, Legislative Research Analyst
Senate Judiciary Committee
Victoria Tafoya
Senate Assistant Research
Meetings
The Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety met on the following dates:
September 7, 1994 May 9, 1995
September 15, 1994 May 31, 1995
October 3, 1994 June 22, 1995
November 2, 1 994 August 8, 1995
November 9, 1994 August 24, 1995
November 29, 1994
Appendix B contains the minutes of each meeting.
The committee approved a total of 69 school district applications for School Safety
Program funding during its two years of operation. 57 of 61 applicants were approved
for funding for the initial phase of the program beginning in the second school semester
of 1995. For the second phase which provided funding for the 1995- 1 996 school year,
12 of 25 applications from new school districts were approved. School participants who
applied for renewal were approved to continue program participation as well.
The committee reviewed all of the school district applications in subgroups. After the
subgroups developed recommendations from their application review, they presented
their recommendations to the full committee. The committee then determined how to
allocate funding based on the subgroups' recommendations. The Department of
Education distributed the program funding allocations for new and renewal applications
to the school districts.
The committee's work also involved considering program participants' special requests
and concerns, and directing program participants to submit evaluations. An analysis of
the program evaluations from school participants is not complete at this time.
Appendix C contains the funding allocations.
APPENDIX A
Sec. 23. Joint lenislative committee on school safety: membership; duties: staff;
compensation: definition
A. The joint legislative committee on school safety is established consisting of
the following members:
1. Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate, not
more than one of whom is from the same political party who shall serve as advisory
members.
2. Two members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of
the house of representatives, not more than one of whom is from the same political
party who shall serve as advisory members.
3. The governor, or the governor's designee.
4. The superintendent of public instruction, or the superintendent's designee.
5. A law enforcement officer, appointed by the speaker of the house of
representatives.
6. A juvenile probation officer, nominated by the chief justice of the supreme
court and appointed by the president of the senate.
7. A public school principal, appointed by the superintendent of public
instruction.
8. A representative from the field of law- related education, appointed by the
governor.
B. The committee shall review the plans submitted by the initial applicants for
participation in the school safety program and select school districts that are eligible to
receive funding based on school safety needs.
C. For purposes of this section, " advisory member" means a member who
advises the committee but who is not eligible to vote and is not a member for the
purposes of determining a quorum.
D. The committee shall evaluate the program and the report to the president of
the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the governor, and the joint
legislative audit committee by October 1, 1995.
Sec. 24. Repeal
Section 23 of this act is repealed from and after June 30, 1996.
Sec. 25. School safety wonram proposal; requirements: definitions
A. A school district may apply to participate in a school safety program as
provided in this act for fiscal year 1994- 1 995 by submitting a program proposal by
October 15, 1994 to the joint legislative committee established in section 23 of this act.
The program proposal shall contain a detailed description of the school safety needs of
the school district including a program proposal and plan for implementing a
law- related education program or a plan which demonstrates the existence of a
law- related education program as a school safety prevention strategy and to utilize
trained school resource officers and juvenile probation officers in the schools.
C B. The state board of education shall administer the program in cooperation
with the courts, law enforcement agencies and law- related education providers.
Representatives from the state board of education shall utilize relevant crime statistics
t and shall visit schools located in school districts that submit program proposals in order
to verify the information contained in the program proposals.
C. The state board of education shall distribute monies to the school districts
whose plans have been approved by the joint legislative committee on school safety.
D. Monies received by a school district under the program shall be spent to
implement the approved plans. This program supplements, not supplants, existing
funding provided by school districts.
E. For purposes of this section:
1. " Law- related education" means education to equip children and youth with
the knowledge and skills pertaining to the law, school safety and effective citizenship.
2. " Law- related education program" means a program designed to provide
children and youth with knowledge, skills and activities pertaining to the law and legal
process and to promote law- abiding behavior with the purpose to prevent children and
youth from engaging in delinquency or violence and enable them to become productive
citizens.
Sec. 33. Appropriation: purpose
The sum of $ 2,500,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in fiscal
year 1994- 1 995 to the department of education to pay the cost of placing peace officers
and juvenile probation officers in schools in this state during the year 1994- 1 995. Of
. the total sum of $ 2,500,000, $ 1,250,000 is allocated to pay the cost of placing peace
officers in the schools and $ 1,250,000 is allocated to pay the cost of placing juvenile
probation officers in the schools. School districts shall apply to participate in a school
safety program.
h w s 1995, chapter 258, section 4, sectiori 5 and section 10
Sec. 4. Laws 1994, chapter 201, section 23, is amended to read:
Sec. 23. Joint leaislative committee on school safetv: membership: duties;
staff; compensation: definition
A. The joint legislative committee on school safety is established consisting of
the following members:
1. Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate, not
more than one of whom is from the same political party who shall serve as advisory
members.
2. Two members of the house of representatives, appointed by the speaker of
the house of representatives, not more than one of whom is from the same political
party who shall serve as advisory members.
3. The governor, or the governor's designee.
4. The superintendent of public instruction, or the superintendent's designee.
5. A law enforcement officer, appointed by the speaker of the house of
representatives.
6. A juvenile probation officer, nominated by the chief justice of the supreme
court and appointed by the president of the senate.
7. A public school principal, appointed by the superintendent of public
instruction.
8. A representative from the field of law- related education, appointed by the
governor.
B. The committee shall review the plans submitted by the initial applicants for
participation in the school safety program and select school districts that are eligible to
receive funding based on school safety needs.
C. For purposes of this section, " advisory member" means a member who
advises the committee but who is not eligible to vote and is not a member for the
purposes of determining a quorum.
D. The committee shall evaluate the program and the report to the president of
the senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the governor, and the joint
legislative audit committee by October 1, 1995 AND October 1, 1996.
Sec. 5. Law 1994, chapter 201, section 25, is amended to read:
Sec. 25. Public school safetv program proposal: requirements; purpose;
definitions
A. A PUBLIC school district may apply to participate OR REQUEST TO
CONTINUE in a school safety program as provided in this act for fiscal year 1994- 1 995
AND 1995- 1996 by submitting a program proposal OR A REQUEST TO CONTINUE
THE PROGRAM by AUGUST 1, 1995 to the joint legislative
committee established in section 23 of this act. NEW APPLICANTS SHALL BE
RESTRICTED TO UNENCUMBERED MONIES WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED
IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS. The program proposal shall contain a detailed
description of the school safety needs of the PUBLIC school district including a
program proposal and plan for implementing a law- related education program or a plan
* which demonstrates the existence of a law- related education program as a school
safety prevention strategy and to utilize trained school resource officers and juvenile
c probation officers in the schools.
B. The state board of education shall administer the program in cooperation
with the courts, law enforcement agencies and law- related education providers.
Representatives from the state board of education shall utilize relevant crime statistics
and shall visit schools located in PUBLIC school districts that submit program
proposals in order to verify the information contained in the program proposals.
C. The state board of education shall distribute monies to the public school
districts whose plans have been approved by the joint legislative committee on school
safety.
D. Monies received by a PUBLIC school district under the program shall be
spent to implement the approved plans. This program supplements, not supplants,
existing funding provided by school districts.
E. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO PROVIDE A PROACTIVE
APPROACH TO PREVENT JUVENILE REFERRALS TO THE COURT SYSTEMS AND
DETENTION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH TREATMENT AND
REHABILITATION, COUNTY JAILS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.
E F. For purposes of this section:
1. " Law- related education" means education to equip children and youth with
the knowledge and skills pertaining to the law, school safety and effective citizenship.
2. " Law- related education program" means a program designed to provide
children and youth with knowledge, skills and activities pertaining to the law and legal
process and to promote law- abiding behavior with the purpose to prevent children and
youth from engaging in delinquency or violence and enable them to become productive
citizens.
Sec. 10. Appropriation: purpose
The sum of $ 2,500,000 is appropriated from the state general fund in fiscal
year 1995- 1 996 to the department of education to continue the placement of peace
officers and juvenile probation officers in public schools during the year 1995- 1 996 as
previously authorized by the joint legislative committee on school safety pursuant to
Laws 1994, chapter 201, section 25.
taws 1995, chapter 9, section 7
Juvenile crime omnibus
Lump sum appropriation $ 2,500,000
The appropriated amount is to pay the cost of placing peace officers and
juvenile probation officers in schools.
APPENDIX 6
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- f i rst Legi sl ature - Second Regul ar Session
Joint Legislative Comnittee on School Safety
Minutes of Meeting
Wednesday, September 7, 1994
Senate Hearing Room 1 - 10: OO a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 10: 05 a. m. by Senator Noland and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Delores Casil las for Joe A1 bo
He1 1 en Carter
Brenda Henderson
Senator A1 ston
Senator No1 and
Nancy Kloss
Stan Morrow
Linda Rando
Representative McLendon
Representative Smith
Members Absent
None
S~ eakers Present
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
The Members of the Committee introduced themselves and related the group they
represent in the legislation which establ ished the Committee ( S. B. 1356, juvenile
crime omnibus, Chapter 201).
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Anal vst. Judiciary Committee, conveyed the fact
that the legislation basically states that all Members of the Committee are
voting Members, except the Legi sl ators, who are exoff icio Members. They cannot
vote for Cochairmen but they can be Cochairmen.
Mr. McLendon moved that Senator Noland and Mr. Smith be appointed Cochairmen of
the Committee. The motion carried.
Cochairman No1 and commented that she and Cochairman Smith agree that a definition
of a safe school is needed in conjunction with the goals and funding established
in the legislation. She opined that funding flow should be discussed by the
Committee at the next meeting. She noted that half of the funding provided will
be for 1 aw enforcement officers and half for probation officers; the funding will
not be provided through the school district system but through different systems.
She mentioned a three- day meeting on safe schools held by the Arizona Bar
Foundation Center for Law- Related Education and the Arizona Department of
Education ( DOE), noting that funding flow was one of the questions raised. She
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
pointed out that the deadline for program proposals to be submitted by the school
districts is October 15, 1994 so the Committee needs to move swiftly; until
recently, all appointments to the Committee had not been made which is the reason
for not meeting earl i er. 8
Mr. Smith stated that he reviewed the initial definition of safe schools and
recommended several changes. He remarked that verbal abuse is as detrimental
to students as physical abuse so he asked that it be included as an item to be
eliminated in a school atmosphere. He also requested that the words " other
cultural and ethnic backgrounds" be removed from the initial definition because
he does not like to see specific groups identified; the word students refers to
- all students regardless of background, etc.
Ms. Rando moved that the Committee adopt the definition of a safe school as
provided to the Committee ( Attachment 1). The motion carried.
The Staff Members introduced themsel ves.
Ms. Hoffman reviewed the provisions of S. B. 1356 ( Attachment 2) noting that the
October 15, 1994 dead1 ine can be extended if the Committee would 1 i ke to do so.
Cochairman Smith noted that it is the responsibility of the Committee to review
the plans submitted by the districts, and asked if the schools will be visited
to review exactly what they are requesting and determine if it is necessary.
He added that law- related education is extremely necessary but it should not be .
utilizing too much education time.
Ms. Rando explained that law- related education is a national effort to reduce
violence in schools. It is a tool which plays a vital role in the school and
community in working with young people to not only have them bond to positive
models with the community ( probation officers, courts, and police officers) but
to understand why laws and rules exist, their rights and responsibilities, and
the consequences of breaking them.
Senator A1 ston asked if the probation officers would have an active caseload with
the students on their school site.
Cochairman Noland replied that it is her intention that they carry a caseload
but the programs for probation officers and 1 aw enforcement will be up to the
schools. She said this would not only be done in alternative schools since
sometimes children get into trouble and receive probation oversight; in some
cases, that can be turned around before they have to be sent to an alternative
school or expelled. They could also be working with other children to prevent
them from getting into such a situation. She remarked that the school districts
need to inform the Committee of their school safety needs and provide an
innovative program; the Committee will either approve or decline the proposals.
The program can be perfected and there may be more money in the future for
expansion; but the proposals cannot supplant other programs.
Ms. Carter expressed her pleasure at passage of S. B. 1356. She noted that often
probation officers are not involved until children are in trouble; this
legislation provides the ability for them to work in the schools and provide
services not only for those children in trouble at school but also for those
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
who may at some point come into contact with the law and circumvent a need for
more expensive court action at a 1 ater date. She agreed that a probation officer
would need to carry a caseload within the school setting.
Cochairman Smith sought assurance that 1 aw- re1 ated education would be included,
for example, in a social studies cl assroom as discussion about local communi ties.
Cochairman Noland agreed that it is not the intention to block out time for law-related
education but to integrate it.
Cochairman Smith noted that currently police officers are on site at high schools
and middle schools. He asked if pol ice officers can expand the DARE program so
that it can be included as part of the law education program.
Cochairman Noland answered that it is up to the Committee to determine that but
doing so would not supplant the program; it would be a supplement. She noted
that there are many instances where budgets do not allow for such expansion or
for this type of program to be available at all.
Cochairman No1 and clarified that the Committee's goal is to review grants and
receive submitted program proposals by October 15, 1994. The objectives are to
determine who needs the grants, who will receive the funding, who has the best
plan, and verify with DOE that they are valid plans and needs.
Ms. Henderson asked if the Department of Education ( DOE) would be required to
inspect every school submitting a proposal .
Cochairman No1 and answered that the legislation states that DOE will administer
the program in cooperation with the courts, law enforcement agencies and law-re1
ated education providers. She envisioned that the Committee would prioritize
the proposals it believes fit into the category for safe schools and do not
supplant other programs. It is not known how many proposals will be received.
After prioritization by the Committee, it would be up to DOE to inspect the
sites.
Ms. Henderson advised that implementation of the Drug Abuse Resistance and
Education ( DARE) program in sixth grade only would be a supplement and would not
supplant any programs.
Mr. Morrow, a former DARE officer, explained that DARE is basically geared
toward, but not limited to, the 5th or 6th grades. In Mesa, they tried to obtain
more officers for the junior high and high schools because there are curriculums
avail able for that age group. He added that another program avail able is Gang
Resistance Education and Training ( GREAT) for 3rd through 8th grade students.
He noted that DARE is not only geared towards drugs; it also teaches students
about the law, and how to maintain themselves in situations where they may be
approached by a police officer. He pointed out that one problem is the
availability of people to teach the program; in the City of Mesa there were nine
DARE officers for 43 elementary schools and no officers available for the junior
high. The City was able to obtain grants for the GREAT program for the junior
high school but there is no program for the high school.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Mr. Morrow advised the Committee that the DARE program is designed so that the
officers do not take any action while they are on the school grounds because the
purpose is to have the students become more familiar with police officers and
gain their trust. He said it is vitally important to understand that if an
officer is on site carrying a caseload and he is able to arrest people, the
children do not trust him; they fear him. He is there as a positive role model
in students' lives ( which lots of them do not have).
Ms. Casill as encouraged the Members to consider the fact that there are a lot
of initiatives going on pertaining to community prevention planning. She
suggested that one of the el igi bil ity criteria for the proposals be incorporation
of community plans.
Cochairman Smith opined that he would like to visit some of the school sites,
in addition to DOE.
Ms. Casillas cautioned him that when small amounts of money have been available,
as many as 200 responses have been received; it may be difficult to visit a 1 ot
of sites.
Cochairman Noland reiterated the fact that it is not known how many proposals
will be received, and the Committee will set priorities. She asked if the
October 15, 1994 deadline is a realistic date for requiring that the proposals
be submitted.
Ms. Rando noted that all school districts were notified and invited to a meeting
on June 3 so they are aware of the legislation. Since that meeting, copies of
the legislation have been sent to every school eligible for participation. She .
expressed the fact that the schools need to contact the courts and law
enforcement agencies if they have not done so because if community- based models
or a community application is being considered, they will need time to identify
their local needs in order to put their proposals together.
Senator Alston suggested that the school districts be required to show how these
funds and this program will fit in with ongoing efforts in the community, the
Department of Health Services ( DHS) , etc.
Discussion followed among the Members regarding the deadline.
Cochairman Noland updated the goal of the Committee: To receive the
appl ications, set out the application procedure based on the legislation and how
it is drafted in cooperation with items which can include a community concept
and should address how the various components are funded.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Ms. Rando asked if DOE will be the agency sending applications to the schools.
Cochairman Noland replied that this is an issue to be decided by the Committee.
Mr. McLendon suggested that the objectives of the Committee include a statement
that the State of Arizona has zero tolerance for violence in the schools.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Ms. Kloss asked if grants would be given to school districts or individual
schools, and if a district can submit more than one proposal.
Cochairman Smith envisioned that school superintendents, with the cooperation
of the principals, would identify the schools within their district with safety
problems, consolidate the plans by school, and submit a proposal under that
school district. One school district would be allowed to submit proposals for
several different schools; a1 1 or part of a proposal could be funded. He pointed
out a need to determine who will notify the district.
More discussion followed on whether or not the October 15, 1994 deadline for
submitting proposal s is real i st i c.
Cochairman Noland asked Ms. Henderson to find out if the DOE Board would be
willing to hold a special meeting to approve the proposals for funding during
the first part of December so that the program can be facilitated for the second
semester of the school year ( January 1995).
Ms. Rando asked Ms. Carter and Mr. Morrow if the law enforcement agencies would
be able to hire officers, or whatever they need to do, so that personnel will
be available to place on the school grounds by January 1995.
Ms. Carter responded that she does not believe this would be a problem. Mr.
Morrow rep1 ied that there may be problems with the smaller agencies but the
hiring process for the larger agencies is ongoing. He asked if the funding would
be completely stopped after the next school semester, and the officers sent back
to patrol.
Cochairman Noland answered that she would like this program to become a line item
and expanded but its effectiveness will have to be proven in order to do that.
She expressed a commitment to include and maintain this in the budget. She said
another item for the Committee's consideration is if there should be new
proposals in the upcoming year.
Discussion foll owed among the Members concerning the October 15, 1994 deadl ine.
Mr. McLendon submitted that he is not sure an application is necessary; the bill
requires that the districts submit a program proposal. He suggested that the
Committee send a message to the county school superintendents and have them, in
turn, send a reminder of this program to the school districts in their respective
counties since they have already been notified.
Cochairman Noland agreed with Mr. McLendon expressing the fact that guidelines
should be given to the districts. They also need to determine how they will
address the funding flow and prioritize within their districts. This could be
done with a general notice. She speculated that if the DOE Board does agree to
meet in December, the Committee should make an effort to prioritize the proposals
by December 1 so it can inform the Board of its approvals. This could be done
by breaking out into two- or three- member groups to review the proposals, with
a final decision made by the Committee.
More discussion followed concerning the deadl ine.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
Cochairman Noland stated that the Committee will meet next week, and requested
that the Members prepare proposed criteria for the proposals. She also asked
Ms. Henderson for some ideas from DOE on a notice, and who the applications
could be submitted to. She said she would like to discuss the funding flow at
that meeting.
Ms. Casill as suggested that proposed criteria be FAXed to the Members in draft
form so they will be prepared for the next meeting.
Cochairman Noland requested that any information for the next meeting be given
to Ms. Hoffman who will work with Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst,
Judiciary Committee, on coordination. Hopefully, the information can be FAXed
to the Members by Wednesday, September 14, 1994 at the latest.
Cochairman Noland asked Mr. Morrow and Ms. Carter to follow- up on the timeline
for a1 1 ocation of personnel and how the funding can be provided.
Cochairman Smith opined that the DOE Board could probably make some
recommendations re1 ating to the funding flow.
Cochairman Noland asked the Members to submit any recommendations for the
deadline for submitting the proposals to Joni.
Cochairman Noland requested that Ms. Rando provide the names of the school
districts, probation departments and law enforcement agencies who participated -
in a training program.
She noted that the next meeting will be on Thursday, September 15, 1994 at 9: 30 a
a. m.
Mr. McLendon recommended that application deadlines be considered for the next
fiscal year to keep the program ongoing.
Cochairman Noland stated that his suggestion is appropriate and should be
discussed. She said she hopes it can be shown that the program is so innovative
that it will be maintained and provided to all of the schools that need it. She
added that at the last meeting of the Committee, she would like to forward these
types of recommendations to the Legislature.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11: 59 a. m.
( Attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 7, 1994
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
F o r t y - f i r s t Legislature - Second Regul ar Session
Joint Legislative Comnittee on School Safety
Minutes o f Meeting
Thursday, September 15, 1994
House Hearing Room 2 - 9: 30 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called t o order at 9: 35 a. m. by Cochairman Smith and r o l l c a l l
was taken.
Members Present
Helen Carter
Brenda Henderson
Nancy Kloss
Stan Morrow
Linda Rando
Senator No1 and, Cochai rman
Mr. Smith, Cochairman
Members Absent
Do1 ores Casi 11 as
M r . McLendon ( excused)
Senator A1 ston
S~ eakers Present
Dominica M i nore, House Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
Pam Burkhardt, External Programs Coordinator, Creighton School d i s t r i c t
Paul Kosierowski , Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division, Arizona
Supreme Court
Guest L i s t ( Attachment 1)
Cochairman Smith submitted that the c r i t e r i a f o r the proposed school d i s t r i c t
appl ications should be as simple and understandable as possible but detailed
enough so that the schools are aware of what i s expected o f them. He stated that
the applications w i l l be sent t o the school d i s t r i c t s which w i l l forward them
t o the schools, adding that previous discussion was held concerning the
possi b i 1 i t y o f sending the appl ications t o the county superintendents.
Cochairman Noland stated that she spoke t o Mr. McLendon who believes the
Committee should agree t o r e t a i n the October 15 deadline f o r the submission o f
proposals. She said since the date i s i n statute, from a l i a b i l i t y standpoint,
problems could arise i f a grant i s given t o a d i s t r i c t submitting a proposal
a f t e r that date i n l i e u o f a d i s t r i c t submitting a proposal before that date.
She opined that i f the Committee agrees to r e t a i n the date, eliminating the
involvement o f county superintendents would stream1 ine the process.
Dominica Minore, House Research Analvst. Judiciarv Committee, f a m i l i a r i z e d the
Committee with proposed appl i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a forms submi t t e d by the f o l l owing
Members: Cochairman Noland ( Attachment 2); Ms. Henderson ( Attachment 3); Ms.
Casi 11 as ( Attachment 4) ; Linda Rando ( Attachment 5), and Ms. Carter ( Attachment
6).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
Each of the Members, except Ms. Casillas, provided a b r i e f overview of t h e i r
documents.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 9: 50 A. M. FOR DISCUSSION OF CRITERIA TO BE INCLUDED I N
THE APPLICATION. i
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10: OO A. M. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT DELORES
CASILLAS, SENATOR ALSTON, AND MR. McLENDON ( EXCUSED) .
Cochairman Smith endorsed the idea of beginning the appl i c a t i o n with the
d e f i n i t i o n o f a " safe school" so the districts/ schools know that t h i s i s the goal
and t h e i r proposals should contribute t o the accompl ishment o f that d e f i n i t i o n .
Discussion followed among the Members on the information they would 1 i ke t o
request from the school d i s t r i c t s .
Cochairman Smith questioned i f part o f the funding can be spent f o r o f f i c e r s and
part f o r alarm systems, fencing, etc.
Cochairman Noland pointed out the r e s t r i c t i o n on uses o f funds noted i n Ms.
Casi 11 as' proposed appl i c a t i o n ( Attachment 4) and disagreed with the notation.
She opined that school safety prevention strategy can be u t i l i z e d with trained
school resource and probation o f f i c e r s i n the schools; if resources are needed
f o r them t o perform t h e i r job, they should be able t o obtain those resources.
THE MEETING RECESSED AT 10: 40 A. M. SO THAT MS. MINORE AND MS. HOFFMAN COULD DRAFT
AN OUTLINE OF THE AGREED- UPON CRITERIA FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATIONS.
THE MEETING REONVENED AT 11: 12 A. M. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT DELORES
CASILLAS, SENATOR ALSTON, AND MR. McLENDON ( EXCUSED).
Cochairman Smith indicated that there may be a discrepancy i n the provisions o f
the b i l l r e l a t i n g t o funding. He referred to the language on page 25, 1 ines 20
through 26, and page 27, l i n e s 19 through 22 ( Attachment 7). He surmised that
funding can only be used t o place the o f f i c e r s i n the schools, and added that
i n t a l k i n g with a member o f the JLBC s t a f f , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n was v e r i f i e d .
Cochairman Noland disagreed with Mr. Smith's assessment o f the funding. She
countered that the funding can be used f o r school safety programs i n conjunction
with u t i l i z a t i o n o f police and probation o f f i c e r s ; the main idea i s that the
funding i s spl it 50- 50 between them.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Cochairman Smith asked if money can be u t i l i z e d f o r alarm systems or items o f
that type.
Cochairman Noland r e p l i e d that she does not believe it was envisioned that the
funding be used f o r alarms, fences, etc. ; the schools can do that as part o f
t h e i r overall school safety program but they would have t o u t i l ize t h e i r own
c a p i t a l or other type o f funds f o r that.
Cochairman Smith stated that it i s important that the school principals and ,
d i s t r i c t superintendents are aware that funding cannot be used f o r programs i n
which these o f f i c e r s w i l l not be u t i l i z e d .
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
2 SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
Cochairman No1 and emphasized the fact that the Committee will have to make sure
that the funding is evenly split. She added that the school districts should
be provided with a copy of the law.
Mr. Morrow indicated that he believes funding for placing the officers in the
schools includes the cost of training and materials needed for a specific
curricul um ( notebooks, posters, etc.) .
Ms. Carter agreed with Mr. Morrow's assessment.
Cochairman Smith agreed that funding can be used for training of the officers,
and the Committee can determine how broadly the funding can be expended for
suppl ies, etc.
The Members reviewed the proposed appl ication prepared by Ms. Hoffman and Ms.
Minore ( Attachment 8).
Cochairman Smith noted that the document does not include police officers.
Mr. Morrow cl ari f ied that resource officers are pol ice officers.
Cochairman Smith suggested that they be identified as resource/ police officers
for clarification.
Referring to # 4, Cochairman Smith determined that the Committee basically wants
to know if the positions are funded by district or outside- district funds.
The Members agreed to add the following after the definition of a " safe school ":
The sum of $ 2.5- mi 11 ion is appropriated from the state general fund in the fiscal
year 1994- 95; one half of that fund ($ 1,250,000) is allocated to pay the cost
of placing juvenile police officers in the schools and $ 1,250,000 is allocated
to pay the cost of placing probation officers in the schools.
Ms. Carter suggested that the school districts show that they have contacted the
police or probation department and received acknowledgement that they are willing
to work with them or supply an officer.
Cochairman No1 and suggested that they provide the name of the contact person with
the 1 aw enforcement agency.
Ms. Henderson said they could even be required to sign the application.
The Members agreed to change # 6 to read as follows: Based on # 5, provide a
detai 1 ed p1 an explaining how you wi 11 uti 1 i ze a pol ice officer and/ or a probat ion
officer in addressing the safety needs of your school.
The Members discussed the possibility of a signature page to show that there is
authorization from the law enforcement agency.
Cochairman Smith suggested that # 6D be added: Identify who is responsible for
implementation and supervision of the program.
Cochairman Noland referred to a form which could be submitted as a common form
for comparison of the proposals in an easy manner ( Attachment 9).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
3 SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
Discussion followed among the Members concerning use o f the form.
Cochairman Smith asked if any Member disagrees with retention o f the October 15
submission dead1 ine. There were no Members i n d i sagreement .
&
Cochairman Noland suggested that # 7 be inserted as # 6E.
The Members agreed t h a t a signature page should be included and referred t o i n
the cover 1 e t t e r .
Cochairman Noland suggested t h a t the amount applied f o r should be requested as
# 6F.
The Members agreed t o change the questions as follows:
# 6E. Describe how your d i s t r i c t w i l l incorporate funding with the juvenile
court and/ or 1 ocal 1 aw enforcement agency( s) .
# 6F. Demonstrate the amount o f funds requested.
# 7. If your program i s funded, can it be implemented a t the s t a r t of the
second semester?
Mr. Morrow submitted t h a t he was asked t o check on the a b i l i t y o f law enforcement
agencies t o provide o f f i c e r s f o r the schools. He said i n t a l k i n g w i t h t h e h i r i n g
coordinator, there i s no problem with h i r i n g an o f f i c e r , but there i s a selection
process f o r these o f f i c e r s which would take about two or three weeks.
Ms. Carter indicated t h a t the probation o f f i c e r s can be on- line at the s t a r t o f
the second semester; they would only be required t o place an o f f i c e r i n the
p o s i t i o n at the school and fill t h e i r previous position.
Cochairman Noland suggested t h a t # 7 be changed as follows: Acknowledgement that
i f your proposal i s funded, you can implement the program i n the second semester
o f the school year.
Cochairman No1 and submitted that # 8 should be added: Acknowl edgement of
cooperation and commitment o f the proper 1 aw enforcement a u t h o r i t i e s and
probation a u t h o r i t i e s .
Cochairman Smith stated t h a t a signature l i n e should be included on the bottom
o f the application f o r the school p r i n c i p a l .
Ms. Henderson moved, seconded by Ms. Kloss, t h a t the Committee approve the
application which includes i n the packet a cover l e t t e r , application, copy of
the law, goal statement chart, a signature'page, and a budget page. The motion
carried.
The Members reviewed the cover l e t t e r ( Attachment 10). They agreed t h a t the
appl i c a t i o n s shall be submitted t o the School Safety Committee, i n care o f Joni
Hoffman, Senate Judiciary Analyst, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix, and postmarked
by October 15.
The Members discussed enclosures. The agreed t h a t t h i s paragraph should be added
t o the cover l e t t e r :
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
The following documents are included in this package:
1, The law ( S. B. 1356, Chapter 201, pages 25 through 27)
2. School safety program funding appl i cation ( as amended
during this meeting)
3. Signature page
4. Budget page
5. Action plan ( executive summary of funding application)
( Tape 2, Side A)
Discussion followed on whether or not the school safety program funding
application ( Attachment 8) and the action plan ( Attachment 9) are both
necessary.
Mr. Morrow suggested that the form for the program guidelines ( Attachment 8) be
made into a two or three- page document with space provided for answers between
each question to provide detailed information on the proposal s.
Pam Burkhardt, External Programs Coordinator, Creiqhton School District, who
provided the action plan to Cochairman Noland, clarified that it is simply
places narrative statements into a simple format.
Paul Kosierowski, Proqram Manaqer, Juvenile Justice Services Division, Arizona
Su~ reme Court, suggested that the number and type of officers requested be
i ncl uded in the proposal s .
More discussion following concerning use of both forms.
Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Mr. Morrow, that the Committee incorporate the
action pl an ( executive summary of funding appl ication [ Attachment 91) in
conjunct ion with the appl ication ( Attachment 8) for use. The motion carried.
Ms. Henderson moved, seconded by Ms. Carter, that the action plan ( executive
summary of funding appl ication) as designed ( Attachment 9) be implemented in the
package. The motion carried.
The Members agreed to utilize the budget page submitted by Ms. Rando ( Attachment
5, last page). Ms. Rando suggested that the following be added after Operating
Expenses: ( i . e. desk, chairs, office suppl ies) .
Cochairman Smith remarked that the school ' name and district should be placed at
the top of all of the forms submitted to the Committee.
Mr. Morrow suggested that they also include Page 1 of , etc.
The Members agreed to limit addendums to the proposals to no more than 10 pages.
The Members agreed that the following should appear on the signature page:
a. Signature of the school principal
b. Signature of the district superintendent
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
5 SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
c. Signature o f an authorized 1 aw enforcement agent
d. Signature o f an authorized probation agent
e. Date
Cochairman No1 and suggested that the t o t a l amount of funding requested be placed :
i n the top right- hand corner o f the budget page.
The Members agreed that Ms. Henderson w i l l be the contact person f o r questions
from the school s/ school d i s t r i c t s .
Ms. Hoffman expressed a hope t o mail the applications tomorrow. Cochairman
Noland suggested that copies be FAXed t o the Members during the mailing process.
The Members agreed t o request three copies o f the submi t t e d proposals with the
o r i g i n a l remaining with the d i s t r i c t .
Ms. Rando asked i f there i s a way t o indicate the urgency o f sending the
appl i c a t i ons t o the school s.
Cochairman Noland suggested that the cover l e t t e r contain a notation on the
bottom i n bold l e t t e r s requesting that the appl ications be d i s t r i b u t e d
immediately.
The following Members volunteered t o be on a Subcommittee t o compile a method
o f evaluating the proposals:
Ms. Kloss
Ms. Carter
Mr. Morrow
- Ms. Rando
Cochairman Smith t o l d the Subcommittee Members that they w i l l elect t h e i r own
Chairman and set a time to meet, but it should be before the proposals are
submitted. He added that he would be glad t o attend the meetings if they w i l l
l e t him know when they w i l l be held.
The Members agreed t o meet again on Monday, October 3, at 9: 30 a. m. i n House
Hearing Room 2.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12: 58 p. m.
( Attachments and tapes are on f i l e i n the Office of the Chief Clerk).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
SEPTEMBER 15, 1994
ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MEETING T- 2:. * _ - - %'. i- - :.--+ DATE
NAME AND TITLE ( Please print) REPRESENTING BILL NO.
+/ e/ len A 5- CA( LT~ T I
ATTACHMENT -/
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- first Legislature - Second Regular Session
Joint Legislative Comnittee on School Safety
Minutes of Meeting
Monday, October 3, 1994
House Hearing Room 2 - 9: 30 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side 0)
The meeting was called to order at 8: 36 a. m. by Cochairman Smith and roll call
was taken.
Members Present
Del ores Casi 11 as Stan Morrow
Hellen Carter Linda Rando
Bonnie Barcl ay for Brenda Henderson Mr. Smith, Cochairman
Members Absent
Nancy Kloss
Mr. McLendon ( excused)
Senator A1 ston
Senator No1 and, Cochairman ( excused)
S~ eakers Present
None
Guest List ( Attachment 1)
Mr. Smith verified that applications have been mailed to the school district
superintendents with instructions to send them to the principals. He noted that
prior to the meeting he talked to Ernie Garcia, Juvenile Probation Officer,
Maricopa County, and Ms. Carter, regarding job descriptions for probation
officers; that is about to be resolved.
Ms. Rando reported to the Committee that she met with Ms. Kloss and Mr. Morrow
about two weeks ago to develop criteria for evaluation of the proposals. They
determined that questions # 1 through # 4 on the application provide background,
while # 5 is the " meatn of the proposal ( Attachment 2). She explained that they
agreed on questions the Committee would look for during evaluation, and developed
a point structure which allows for a possible 100 points for question # 5.
Mr. Morrow stated that it has not been decided if the districts should be
notified that question # 5 is the most important part of the application.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
OCTOBER 3, 1994
Ms. Rando remarked t h a t Ms. Kloss spoke with Senator No1 and who does not think
it i s necessary t o do that. Cochairman Smith concurred with the decision.
Ms. Rando t o l d the Members t h a t she was i n Washington, D. C. l a s t week t o attend '
a national conference concerning 1 aw- re1 ated education. She added t h a t many of
the p a r t i c i p a n t s were interested i n what i s being done i n Arizona, and
Legislators from Oregon would 1 i ke t o obtain s i m i l a r 1 anguage f o r incorporation
i n a b i l l f o r t h e i r next Session.
The Members perused a d r a f t copy of evaluation c r i t e r i a submitted by Ms. Rando
( Attachment 3) .
Ms. Casil l a s noted t h a t some d i s t r i c t s have professional grant w r i t e r s on s t a f f
w h i l e t h e smaller, r u r a l communities may not. She expressed a concern that
those i n most need o f a program may be overlooked because t h e i r appl ications are
not up t o par with those w r i t t e n by expert w r i t e r s .
Cochairman Smith rep1 i e d t h a t the Committee should keep i n mind, when evaluating
the proposals, t h a t the needs o f the schools rather than the qua1 i t y of the
proposals, i s o f utmost importance.
Cochairman Smith indicated t h a t he would l i k e the Members t o review the d r a f t
( Attachment 3), and if they have recommendations f o r revisions, t o contact Joni
Hoffman, Research Analyst, Senate Judiciary Committee, or Dominica Minore,
Research Analyst, House Judiciary Committee, by Friday, October 7. If there are
any revisions, Ms. Hoffman or Ms. Minore w i l l mail copies t o the Members. .
Ms. Hoffman c l a r i f i e d t h a t when she receives the proposals, she w i l l log them -
in, make copies, and d i s t r i b u t e them t o the Members. She asked if the Committee
w i 11 be breaking i n t o Subcommi ttees t o eval uate the proposal s.
Cochairman Smith answered that it depends on the amount o f proposals received.
A f t e r some discussion, the Members agreed t o meet again on Wednesday, November
2 , 1994 at 9: 00 a. m, and t o plan s i t e v i s i t s from November 2 t o November 16,
1994.
Ms. Hoffman stated her i n t e n t i o n t o assign a number t o each proposal as she logs
it in, so t h a t the evaluation process w i l l be easier. She requested that the
next meeting be held i n the Senate since Ms. Minore w i l l be unable t o attend.
Cochairman Smith assented t o her request.
M r . Morrow asked if those Members l i v i n g and working i n a c e r t a i n area should
be included i n decisions r e l a t i n g t o those p a r t i c u l a r d i s t r i c t s because o f a
possible confl i c t o f i n t e r e s t .
Cochairman Smith opined t h a t knowledge o f c e r t a i n areas could be an asset rather
than a detriment t o the evaluation process.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE .
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
OCTOBER 3, 1994
Ms. Casill as agreed with Cochairman Smith but suggested that anyone who perceives
that heishe may have a conflict could abstain from voting. .
Ms. Barclay informed the Members that the Committee's paperwork needs to be
submitted by November 7, 1994 to the State Administrator. November 28, 1994 is
the next state board meeting, and there will be no December 1994 meeting.
Ms. Hoffman pointed out that Senator Noland requested at a previous meeting that
a special meeting of the State Board of Education be held to address the
proposal s.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10: 30 a. m.
( Attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
OCTOBER 3, 1994
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
F o r t y - f i r s t Legislature - Second Regular Session
Joint Legi sl ative Comni ttee on School Safety
Minutes o f Meeting
Wednesday, November 2, 1994
House Hearing Room 3 - 9: 00 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called t o order at 9: 09 a. m. by Cochairman No1 and and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Del ores Casi 11 as
He1 1 en Carter
Brenda Henderson
Mr. McLendon
Stan Morrow
Lynda Rando
Mr. Smith, Cochair
Senator Noland, Cochair
Members Absent
Nancy Kloss
Senator A1 ston
S~ eakers Present
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee, explained t h a t she
and Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee, assigned a
number t o the School Safety Program Funding Appl ications as they received them.
There i s a t o t a l o f 61; # 56 ( Maricopa Unified School D i s t r i c t ) was postmarked
October 17, 1994, and # 61 ( Cave Creek Unified School D i s t r i c t ) was received l a t e
( the deadline was October 15, 1994) but postmarked October 14, 1994. She guessed
t h a t # 61 had been inadvertently sent t o the Department o f Education ( DOE). After
r e c e i v i n g t h e applications, she and Ms. Minore made copies and d i s t r i b u t e d them
t o the Members. Ms. Hoffman pointed out that # 61 was d i s t r i b u t e d on Friday,
October 28, 1994.
Cochairman Smith submitted t h a t Ms. Hoffman and Ms. Minore did an excel 1 ent job.
Cochairman No1 and commended the Commi t t e e f o r t h e i r suggestions on the evaluation
format t h a t was adopted f o r easy review and consistency. She suggested that the
Members verbally review application # 1 i n order t o f a m i l i a r i z e each other with
methods o f scoring and evaluation, then break up i n t o working groups t o evaluate
the proposal s .
She noted t h a t some Members believe that c r i t e r i a contained i n some of the
applications do not meet guidelines o f the l e g i s l a t i o n , and t h i s should be
discussed.
M r . McLendon asked the t o t a l amount of funding requested.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
Ms. Carter rep1 i e d t h a t she calculated a t o t a l of $ 2,201,254; with revisions and
changes, and a1 1 owing f o r 31 and one- ha1 f school resource/ pol ice o f f i c e r s ( SROs)
and 33 probation o f f i c e r s ( POs). She referred t o a map with a geographical
breakdown by county o f the applications with her ranking and application number
( Attachment 1). She c l a r i f i e d that her estimated t o t a l i s $ 1,028,269 f o r SROs
and $ 1,208,915 f o r POs.
Mr. McLendon stated that he could see a need to p r i o r i t i z e the applications if
the funding requests are greater than what statute indicates i s available f o r
the grants. He questioned i f it might be more prudent t o discuss s i t e v i s i t s .
Cochairman Smith re1 ated t o the Members that he evaluated the appl ications based
on warranted incidents, and if the request i s within the guidelines of the
funding. He scored the applications with a plus, neutral or negative figure.
He came up with 66 pol i c e o f f i c e r s and 56 probation officers, with a t o t a l amount
o f $ 2,618,000 f o r SROs and $ 1,748,164 f o r POs. He agreed with Mr. McLendon that
it i s c r i t i c a l that the requests are within the purview o f the funding, i. e.,
some requested four- wheel - drive vehicles, 1 ighting f o r fields, weekend security,
etc.
Cochairman Noland asked Ms. Carter i f her t o t a l amount was f o r the funding
requested or the amount she thought should be granted.
Ms. Carter r e p l i e d that the t o t a l funding would have been extremely over the
a l l o t t e d funding so she broke the figures down t o give p a r i t y so that every .
individual d i s t r i c t could have some part i n the grant.
Cochairman Noland expressed a need to determine f a i r d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the money .
when choosing the grants.
Ms. Henderson suggested that the Members select the top 20 applications, v i s i t
those sites, and allow f o r additional funds so that the program can be evaluated
t o determine i t s effectiveness; it may be advantageous next year when an attempt
i s made t o obtain more funding.
Cochairman Noland added that perhaps the Committee could determine which d i s t r i c t
has the best evaluation tool and possibly make suggestions f o r a better
evaluation f o r those who receive the grant.
Ms. Carter asked if funding f o r the proposals i s f o r s i x o r twelve months, and
i f the funds are reverted.
Cochairman No1 and answered that the funding i s f o r s i x months, t o the end o f the
f i s c a l year. Hopefully, the mechanism w i l l be i n place t o fund the program f o r
another year.
Ms. Hoffman stated that the funding i s f o r the 1994- 95 school year. She said
she believes the funds do revert because there i s no specific nonlapsing clause
i n the l e g i s l a t i o n .
The Members verbally reviewed application # 1 i n conjunction w i t h the School
D i s t r i c t Appl i c a t i o n Evaluation form ( Attachment 2).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
Cochairman Smith interjected his opinion that the 1 ate application (# 56) should
not be considered because " it may open up a can of worms."
Cochairman Noland agreed with Mr. Smith's statement, adding that it could be
reviewed 1 ast in the event that there is remaining funding. Problems could arise
if that district is granted funding over someone else who turned their proposal
in on time.
Discussion followed among the Members concerning consideration of the proposals
in terms of meeting the requirements of the legislation. Cochairman Noland
proposed that the appropriateness of the requests be considered during
evaluations by the Subcommittees .
The Members discussed possible dates for the next meeting and site visits.
Ms. Carter indicated that she will be in northern Arizona during the next two
weeks and offered to perform site visits in Yavapai, Coconino and Navajo
Counties .
Cochairman Noland suggested that the Committee meet again to discuss
recommendations of the Subcommittees and determine how site visits should be
performed; possibly some could be done over the phone. The Members agreed to
meet again on November 9 at 11: OO a. m.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Cochairman Noland assigned the following Subcommittees to review the appl ications
assigned to them following adjournment of this meeting:
Senator No1 and ( Applications # 1 through # 15)
Lynda Rando
Mr. Smith ( Applications # 16 through # 30)
Del ores Cas i 11 as
Brenda Henderson ( Appl i cat i ons # 31 through # 45)
He1 1 en Carter
Mr. McLendon ( Appl ication # 46 through # 61)
Stan Morrow
Cochairman No1 and requested that Mr. McLendon and Mr. Morrow review appl i cati on
# 61 in the event that it may be considered for a grant.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10: 13 a. m.
( Attachments and tape are on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk).
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 2, 1994
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- f i r s t Legi s l ature - Second Regul ar Session
J o i n t Legislative Comni t t e e on School Safety
Minutes o f Meeting
Wednesday, November 9, 1994
Senate Majority Caucus Room - 11: OO a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called t o order at 11: 15 a. m. by Cochairman Smith and attendance
was noted.
Members Present
Brenda Henderson
Stan Morrow
Senator No1 and, Cochair
Lynda Rando
Mr. Smith, Cochair
Members Absent
He1 1 en Carter
Delores Casi 11 as
Senator A1 ston
Nancy Kloss
M r . McLendon
S~ eakers Present
Paul Kosierowski , Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division, Arizona
Supreme Court ( f o r Hellen Carter)
Staff
Joni Hoffman, Senate Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
Diana O'Dell, Assistant Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee
C r i s t i n a Arzaga- Williams, House Minority Research Analyst
Cochairman Smith explained t o the Members present that the purpose o f today's
meeting i s t o review and discuss the 60 School Safety Program Funding
Appl ications previously d i s t r i b u t e d t o the four two- Member teams. Mr. Smith
noted t h a t his teammate, Delores Casillas, has been on vacation since the review
process began and has been unable t o help with the evaluations. He observed that
most o f the schools budgeted f o r 12- month dppropriations rather than s i x months.
He commented t h a t there are s u f f i c i e n t funds budgeted f o r placing pol ice o f f i c e r s
or probation o f f i c e r s on school grounds. He opined t h a t the School Safety
Program i s an excellent p i l o t program and, w i t h i n six months, should show whether
it i s developing i n t o an e f f e c t i v e program.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Cochairman Noland d i s t r i b u t e d a log and ranking sheet ( Attachment # 1) that she
and Ms. Rando developed f o r school d i s t r i c t s # 1- 15. Senator Noland expressed
doubt t h a t the Committee had made it clear t o the school d i s t r i c t s that funding
was for a six- month period rather than 12. She said that when the d i s t r i c t s
requested funding f o r 12 months, she and Ms. Rando adjusted the f i g u r e to six
months.
Cochairman Noland and Ms. Rando reviewed the 15 school d i s t r i c t s assigned t o
them, made comments about each Application, suggested whether the d i s t r i c t s
needed a follow- up v i s i t or telephone c a l l s , and ranked each Application
according t o p r i o r i t i e s . Senator Noland had Ms. Rando review the Catalina
F o o t h i l l s High School Application since the school i s i n Senator Noland's
l e g i s l a t i v e d i s t r i c t . Cochairman Noland stated t h a t she and Ms. Rando were
a r b i t r a r y i n t h e i r reviews and thought a couple o f schools d i d not need any
funding. Senator Noland submitted that some d i s t r i c t s appear t o need help i n
developing t h e i r evaluation tool s. Senator No1 and commented t h a t she does not
believe t h e Department o f Education has funded the School Safety Program f o r next
year and does not t h i n k t h a t the program can be done successfully for only six
months. She added that she would l i k e t o see the program continue f o r one more
year and extend or open up the application process again t o the school d i s t r i c t s .
Senator Noland t o l d the Members that o r i g i n a l l y the Governor asked f o r $ 5,000,000
f o r school safety but because o f some budget problems at the time, and because
funds were not available f o r more than six months, $ 2,500,000 was funded.
Senator No1 and suggested meeting with the respective Appropriations Committee
Chairmen i f the J o i n t Legi s l ative Committee on School Safety determines funding
should be increased. She indicated that the Committee needs t o discuss the issue
and make recommendations f o r the following year.
Mr. Smith commented that the Committee can get tentative approval from the House
Chairman o f Appropriations t o fund next year, make a recommendation t o increase
funding f o r next year, then go through the Legislature f o r f i n a l i z a t i o n . He
f u r t h e r stated t h a t f o r the l a s t couple o f years funding has been approved i n
s u f f i c i e n t time f o r budgeting.
Senator Noland stated that it would be d i f f i c u l t f o r the school d i s t r i c t s t o get
commitments f o r probation and law enforcement o f f i c e r s i f the period i s n ' t
extended t o one year.
Paul Kosierowski , Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division, Arizona
Supreme Court, concurred that the recruitment process would be hampered by h i r i n g
someone f o r only s i x months.
Cochairman Smith said he could speak with the House Appropriations Chairman
today.
Senator No1 and expl ained that Dr. Marge Cauley, Senior Fiscal Analyst, Joint
Legislative Budget Committee ( JLBC), i s aware o f the problems with six- month
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
funding and, hopefully, will oversee the situation with JLBC. She added that
the issue can be hand1 ed as a separate school safety bi 11, if it hasn't a1 ready
been included, but she reminded Members that it is the full Committee which
makes actual recommendations.
p There was discussion among Senator Noland, Ms. Rando and Joni Hoffman, Senate
Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee, concerning letters of commitment . Senator
No1 and summarized the discussion by saying that after follow- up ( either site
visit or telephone calls), the school districts should write a letter of
commitment incorporating any amendments to their proposal s. Cochairman No1 and
said that the School Safety Committee will recommend each school district be
funded based on some amendment of their proposal and the district's acceptance
of the Committee's amendments on training and curriculum.
Mr. Kosierowski questioned the figures for Murphy School District and Senator
Noland told him there appeared to be a mistake and she will doublecheck the
figures .
Senator Noland stated that there were items in some of the proposals that she
and Ms. Rando thought inappropriate ( e. g., out- of- state school safety
conferences, bicycles, security guards for school events) .
Discussion ensued concerning the difficulty the school districts had filling out
their Applications. Ms. Hoffman stated she didn't think the Application was
difficult to understand but Ms. Rando responded that it is a problem common to
a1 1 grants. Senator No1 and commented that some districts made good evaluations,
which indicated the shortcomings of the other districts. She cited Woodard
* Junior High School as a good example and suggested its Application could be used
as a model for those districts having trouble understanding what information
the Committee needs. Ms. Rando agreed that there were a couple of districts ' which had very good evaluation components and processes and said that information
could be pulled from each of them.
Cochairman Smith reviewed Appl ications # 16- 30. He did not rank his Appl ications,
stating that he wanted to discuss the proposals with the school districts before
eliminating anything from their requests. Mr. Smith commented on the importance
of schools utilizing parents and teachers at school events and suggested that
the practice should continue after funding.
( Tape 1, Side 2)
Mr. Smith said he thought it is important to find out whether or not there are
fences around the school grounds since an enclosed campus is easier to control.
He stated that some of the Applications indicated the schools have problems with
non- school population coming onto the school grounds and he thought having this
information would provide a better understanding of some of the safety problems.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
Comments were made concerning the high figures f o r t r a v e l expenses on the
Appl ications. Senator No1 and explained that sometimes probation officers and
school resource/ pol i c e o f f i c e r s are not on campus and must t r a v e l t o the school s. q
M r . Kosierowski confirmed f o r Senator Noland t h a t the main juvenile court f o r
Cochise County i s i n Bisbee which would increase the t r a v e l expense needs.
Senator No1 and challenged Members t o remember that the courts and probation
o f f i c e r s may be i n d i f f e r e n t locations from the schools they serve.
Mr. Smith stated t h a t each school views things d i f f e r e n t l y and he i s not
concerned about them requesting anything they think they need because t h e i r
requests can be discussed by the Committee and denied, i f necessary. M r . Smith
stated t h a t communication with the d i s t r i c t s i s j u s t a part o f the process since
what i s discussed as a Committee i s n ' t always clear when w r i t t e n . He indicated
that he and Ms. Casillas have further work t o do on t h e i r Applications.
Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst, Judiciary Committee, questioned how East
Val ley Technology I n s t i t u t e should be treated since students from a1 l schools
attend it. M r . Smith concluded that it w i l l be treated as a school d i s t r i c t
but Senator No1 and commented that over1 aps should be discussed. M r . Smith added
that a v i s i t should be made t o the school.
Senator Noland emphasized t o Members t h a t as they follow- up on t h e i r
Applications, they should keep i n mind the d e f i n i t i o n o f school safety and how
the d i s t r i c t s address school incidents. She stressed the need t o decide which
schools w i l l be v i s i t e d and t o follow- up with those that have been contacted by
*
telephone.
Ms. Henderson reviewed Appl i cat i ons # 31- 45 i n Ms. Carter's absence. She stated
t h a t both she and Ms. Carter were tough i n t h e i r evaluations and explained t h e i r
system o f evaluating and ranking the Applications. Ms. Henderson t o l d Senator
Noland t h a t she and Ms. Carter have decided which schools need s i t e v i s i t s and
which ones can be contacted by phone.
M r . Kosierowski suggested that if extra funds are available, the Committee should
r e v i s i t . Mr. Smith agreed and added that the minimum each school d i s t r i c t should
receive i s a phone c a l l since the paperwork may have caused some confusion. He
reminded the Members that, as a Committee, they had agreed i n the beginning that
paperwork should not be a deciding factor. Senator Noland suggested t h a t some
guide1 ines might be he1 p f u l .
M r . Smith d i s t r i b u t e d a memorandum from Representative Bob McLendon and O f f i c e r
Stan Morrow ( Attachment # 3) which reviewed Appl ications # 46- 61. Ms. Hoffman
discovered an e r r o r i n the memo and brought it t o the attention of the Committee:
Application # 2, Ash Fork Joint Unified, was l a t e , not Application # 61, Desert
Arroyo, and Maricopa Unified was 1 ate.
Senator Noland summarized discussions: ( 1) Committee needs t o confirm whether
or not $ 5,000,000 w i l l be funded f o r a f u l l school year; ( 2) each Subcommittee
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
needs t o have f l e x i b i 1 i t y i n deciding whether an i tern i s appropriate or not; ( 3)
Committee needs t o establish a curriculum l i m i t and f i g u r e proposals on a s i x -
month basis; ( 4) Committee needs to discuss appropriateness o f cars, bicycles,
and l i g h t s as security needs; ( 5) f i n d out i f school d i s t r i c t s want funding i f
A f o r only s i x months; ( 6) determine which schools need s i t e v i s i t s and which ones
only need telephone c a l l s ; ( 7) f i n d out i f the schools w i l l accept a better
evaluation tool. Senator No1 and then stated that the Committee needs t o meet
again with a l l the information, t o t a l the amounts, and analyze.
Mr. Smith opined t h a t safe schools are a p r i o r i t y since f a c u l t y cannot teach i n
an unsafe environment. He added that he would push hard, not only f o r a
$ 5,000,000 appropriation, but f o r a $ 1,000,000, or more, increase. He added t h a t
he feels it i s important t o receive input from the schools and f o r the schools
t o understand Members of the Committee are interested i n them.
( Tape 2, Side 1)
Senator No1 and suggested that everyone create a p r i o r i t y 1 i st, with comments,
that would be part o f a follow- up l e t t e r o f confirmation.
It was agreed t h a t the school d i s t r i c t s should send the Committee a new l e t t e r
which out1 ines any changes they have made t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l proposal. A budget
page should be included t o eliminate any confusion.
Senator Noland confirmed that s i t e v i s i t s w i 11 be made before the Committee meets
again .
The Members agreed t o meet again on November 29 at 1: 30 p. m. at which time each
team w i l l p r i o r t i z e i t s 15 school d i s t r i c t s . Before the meeting each team should
contact each d i s t r i c t by phone or s i t e v i s i t , get a l l submission information and
request a l e t t e r o f confirmation, including any changes Members have made.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12: 50 p. m.
Mildred Holl is&, ~ & m it t e e Secretary
( Attachments and tapes are on f i l e i n the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
NOVEMBER 9, 1994
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- first Legislature - Second Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
Minutes of Meeting
Tuesday, November 29, 1994
House Majority Caucus Room - 1: 30 p. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Cochairman Smith called the meeting to order at 1: 36 p. m. and attendance was noted by the
secretary.
Members Present
Representative McLendon
Dolores Casillas, Governor's Office for Children
Brenda Henderson, Department of Education
Stan Morrow, City of Mesa
Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department
Nancy Kloss, North High School
Linda Rando, Center for Law Related Education
Senator Noland, Cochair
Representative Smith, Cochair
Members Absent
Senator Alston
Speakers Present
Paul Kosierowski, Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division
Cochairman Smith recapped that in previous meetings, 61 schools were broken into four groups.
The Committee members also broke into four groups, each of which was assigned a group of
schools to contact. He said that when contacting his schools, he asked if a law program could
be integrated into a current subject area and whether there should be a statistical analysis
showing differences between the pilot program semester and the school semester immediately
preceding or following it. In addition, a survey of staff and parents gathered information on
perceived improvements in school safety. The schools also developed budgets for placing police
officers ( SRO's) and probation officers ( PO'S) on school grounds. He noted that most schools
submitted budgets for twelve months.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
11/ 29/ 94
Cochairman Smith reported that a total budget request of $ 454,124 was received from School
Group 1 ( schools 1- 15).
Cochairman Noland reported that she followed Cochairman Smith's actions and contacted every
school except one. Where necessary, new budget sheets based on a six- month plan were t
requested and in almost every case, the schools were asked to standardize their evaluations. She
said each school in School Group 2 ( schools 16- 30) submitted new budget requests.
Ms. Henderson asserted that if the pilot program is to gain approval, the best schools must be
used to make the program look as winsome as possible.
Ms. Carter stated that in reviewing all the proposals, she found them to be fairly equal in their
scope.
Cochairman Noland said she views the school safety project not as a pilot program, but as an
effort to address each school's particular safety program. She expressed doubt a pilot program
would be feasible given the diversity of school situations. She advocated for a good evaluation
method that will help determine accountability and logistics.
Ms. Carter reported that all schools in School Group 3 ( schools 31- 45) were contacted and that
with the exception of Coolidge, all submitted a new proposal and budget. While each school
indicated their happiness over receiving just half the requested amount, all schools requested
funding for the second half of the year. She noted that in- depth information on Coolidge is not
available because the school did not return her calls until the night before the Committee
meeting.
Ms. Henderson distributed a one- page ( Attachment 1) and two- page handout ( not attached). She
mentioned that some schools in School Group 3 frowned upon the inability of law enforcement
to supply $ 30,000 for a car. All schools agreed with the idea of consistent evaluation and one
school requested a summer program.
Cochairman Noland said she informed her schools that funding for six months is available but
that she will continue to fight for continued funding.
Mr. McLendon distributed a handout ( Attachment 2) containing comments and requested funding
for each school in School Group 4 ( schools 46- 61). He noted that some police departments
stated they would have trouble with a six- month program because they budget for an entire year.
Cochairman Smith mentioned that some monies will have to be split between SRO's and PO'S
for administrative support.
Officer Morrow asked if law requires that the administrative support monies must be split
exactly down the middle. Cochairman Noland indicated that a slightly unbalanced split is
acceptable.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
11/ 29/ 94
Cochairman Noland requested members break out into their four groups and work on splitting
the requested funding between PO'S and SRO's.
Ms. Henderson asked if the splitting is to be based on the recommended funding amount.
Cochairman Noland replied affirmatively.
At 153 p. m., the Committee split into four groups to decide how best to divide the
recommended funding between probation officers and police officers.
At 2: 25 p. m., the Committee gathered and began reporting the funding breakdown for the
respective school groups.
Paul Kosierowski. Propram Manaeer. Juvenile Justice Services Division, distributed a handout
( copy not available).
Cochairman Noland reported the following breakdown for School Group 1:
probation officers: 16 @ $ 380,047
police officers: 17 @ $ 374,740
Cochairman Smith reported the following breakdown for School ~ r o2: i ~
probation officers: 9 @ $ 153,696
police officers: 20 @ $ 343,712
Ms. Henderson reported the following breakdown for School Group 3:
probation officers: 9 @ $ 193,814
police officers: 12 @ $ 342,997
Officer Morrow reported the following breakdown for School Group 4:
probation officers: 7 @ $ 133,223
police officers: 19 @ $ 355,314
FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF:
probation officers: 41 @ $ 861,140'
police officers: 68 @ $ 1,416,763
( figure incorrect)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
1 1/ 29/ 94
Cochairman Noland calculated that funding for SRO's is over by $ 166,000. She asked if anyone
felt that SRO funding was granted for a questionable needlrequest.
Mrs. Casillas said there seem to be discrepancies for School Group 3. She suggested that
operational expenses are particularly high.
Cochairman Noland noted that PO pay ranges vary depending upon their jurisdiction. She asked
that the figures for School Group 3 be reviewed again.
Cochairman Smith read off the schools named in School Group 3. Officer Morrow suggested
that because this group contains mostly rural schools, transportation is probably the reason for
the high cost.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Group 3 set about reconciling a mathematical discrepancy.
Officer Morrow asked if a retired police officer will be allowed to serve in the full capacity of
an SRO. Cochairman Smith said this decision must be left to the school requesting the retired
police officer.
Mr. McLendon said Group 4 can add two PO'S to Tucson Unified and one PO to Phoenix
Elementary. Cochairman Noland indicated some problem with Group 4' s figures and said that
at least $ 21,000 should be aliocated for each PO.
Because all the requested PO'S were funded, those groups with excess PO funds went back to
see where this surplus could be applied toward SRO's.
Cochairman Noland said that Dominica Minore, House Committee Research Analyst, will
compile all the figures.
Mrs. Casillas reported the adjusted totals for School Group 3 to be:
probation officers: 16 @ $ 327,477
police officers: 12 @ $ 240,860
Mr. McLendon reported a new figure for School Group 4 to be:
probation officers: 10 @ $ 195,723
After considerable discussion as to how the figures were reached, Cochairman Noland
announced the final grand totals:
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
1 1/ 29/ 94
$ 1,121,943 ( for all PO'S)
$ 1.249.626 ( for all SRO's)
$ 2,371,569
Cochairman Noland asked that all groups submit their final figure sheets to Ms. Minore by
November 30 so that recommendations can be sent to the State Board of Education.
Ms. Carter stated that school # 44 wants a PO but did not send in a revamped budget.
Cochairman Noland said that school # 44 ( Coolidge) will receive funding for one PO at $ 21,000.
Cochairman Noland instructed Mr. Kosierowski to pull out $ 65,000 in operating expenses from
the SRO side even if it requires eliminating an SRO slot.
Cochairman Noland said the Committee must develop a letter quickly which will notify schools
of their awards.
Cochairman Noland asked if there is a motion that the figures discussed with
the adjusted totals are the amounts the Committee recommends be funded.
The suggested motion was so moved by Ms. Henderson and seconded by Ms.
Carter. By majority voice vote, the motion carried.
Cochairman Noland asked Ms. Minore to draft letters and gave her permission to sign for her
in her absence.
Cochairman Noland put forth the idea of a formal request to the Appropriations Chairs and
House and Senate Leadership that the school safety budget be included at $ 5 million for the
following year.
Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Ms. Rando, that the budget for the full year
be elevated to $ 5 million and that funding be continued.
Mr. McLendon suggested that advisors be allowed to sign the letters as well. Cochairman
Noland announced that the letters, which will be copied to the Arizona Department of Education,
will bear everyone's signature.
Ms. Carter's motion carried by a majority voice vote.
Ms. Minore clarified that along with each school's letter of congratulations there should be
included a " good guide" for schools.
Cochairman Noland suggested that the Committee reconvene in June to evaluate the school
safety program.
Cochairman Smith recommended following up with school contacts at the end of the year to
ensure that the program is not a waste of money. Mr. McLendon suggested receiving feedback
from PO'S and SRO's as well.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
5 1 1129194
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 3: 28 p. m.
LG- La & L;~ ZG (/
Teresa Alvarez, Secretary
( Attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copy of minutes with
attachments on file with the Committee Cochairmen.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMI'ITEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY '
11/ 29/ 94
L. ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMI'XTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
Minutes of Interim Meeting
Tuesday May 9, 1995
House Hearing Room 2 - 9: 00 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 9: 06 a. m. by Cochairman Tom Smith and attendance was
noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Senator Robert Chastain
Representative Robert J. McLendon
Tim Sifert, representing Maria Baier
Stan Morrow
Hellen Carter
Linda Rando
Senator Patti Noland, Cochair
Representative Tom Smith, Cochair
Members Absent
Jaimie Leopold Nancy Kloss
Speakers Present
Joni Hoffman, Senate Legislative Analyst
Lieutenant Sil Ontiveros, Youth Services Unit, City of Phoenix Police Department
Cochairman Smith reported. that the response to placement of a probation officer or police officer
on school grounds has been overwhelmingly positive, and stressed the importance of the
continuity of the relationship between the officer and the school to which he is assigned.
Cochairman Noland concurred that she has also received positive feedback in the form of letters
and phone calls, and read into the record a letter from a Tucson teacher at Thomydale
Elementary School concerning the school's satisfaction with a Juvenile Probation Officer ( see
Attachment 1). She noted that the program has brought together the courts, schools and law
enforcement personnel, and described the circuitous method by which the measure, included in
H. B. 2002. education Drograrns: detention centers ( Laws of 1995, Chapter 158), was approved
by the Legislature.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
5/ 9/ 95
Mr. McLendon noted that the Democratic caucus unanimously supported the program. He
opined that the program engenders greater respect for law enforcement at the state's schools.
Senator Chastain, newly appointed to the Committee, expressed his intent to follow up with the
ten school districts in Legislative District 7 currently participating in the program.
Mr. Smith stated that, for successful implementation of the program, it is important that the
Committee determine which schools are involved, what is being funded, and optimum use of the
$ 5 million 1995196 appropriation ($ 2.5 million from the education budget and $ 2.5 million from
the general fund). He proposed that consideration be given to the following components:
1. Additional trained police officers and probation officers;
2. Receipt of evaluations from schools currently participating in the program; and
3. A plan for the next school year with a time line.
Senator Noland read from a letter sent by the Cochairmen of this Committee in December 1994
to participating schools, which requests information in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
School Safety Program, viz: "( 1) statistical data demonstrating a comparison between incidences
that occurred during January through June 1994 and incidences that occurred during January
through June 1995; ( 2) a survey of students, parents, teachers, probation officers and school
resource officers containing feedback regarding the effectiveness of the program; and ( 3) an
indication of whether the program increased students' knowledge of law- related education
through pre- and post- test data." Senator Noland suggested that use of the funding for a purpose
other than that originally approved should also be discussed. She noted that the City of Phoenix
Police Department has, to date, demonstrated a lack of understanding of the program by
providing a different police officer every day, and urged continued contact with the Department
for the purpose of making the goals of the program more clear.
Joni Hoffman, Senate Legislative Analyst, quoted pertinent language from H. B. 2002 and
pointed out that those schools currently being funded need to request continuation of the funding.
Discussion ensued concerning the amount of unexpended money and the need to remind districts
to forward an evaluation and request for funding. Emphasizing the importance of local control,
Mr. Smith proposed that each district should formulate its own evaluation, following the
guidelines contained in the December letter.
Senator Noland concurred that any method of presenting the data would be acceptable, provided
the three requirements are included.
Lieutenant Sil Ontiveros, Youth Services Unit, City of Phoenix Police Department, pointed out
that nineteen new officers were requested for the School Safety Program. Because this number
was too many to pull from the city's neighborhoods, five officers were made available to school
districts in February 1995. He reported that the Phoenix City Council has agreed to fund an
additional fourteen officers by August 1995. Lieutenant Ontiveros affirmed that the Department
stays in close touch with those schools that participate in the program, which is now in eighteen .
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY -
5/ 9/ 95
school districts. He agreed that continuity is important, but noted that some school districts have
chosen to send the officers to different schools within the district. He emphasized that it takes
time to recruit and train new officers to take over neighborhood patrols in order to free up
experienced officers for the schools.
-
Ms. Carter pointed to the difficulty some schools have encountered in getting a police officer
onto the campus, and discussion ensued on the optimum course of action to be taken.
Mr. McLendon reiterated the concern over reliability of funding.
Senator Noland proposed that a letter be sent to current program participants reminding them
of the evaluation requirement and time deadlines, with a possible option to amend the grant
based on their experience. She added that a letter should also be sent to school districts
informing them that a limited sum will be available for new grants, and applications should be
prepared.
Ms. Hoffman pointed out that August 1 is the deadline to receive requests to continue, and
discussion of an effective timeline followed.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Following further discussion, Ms. Hoffman agreed to research and verify whether unspent
money will revert to the general fund.
Cochairman Smith asked Legislative staff to prepare a letter to submit to school districts as soon
as possible, bearing in mind that many schools close during the summer months.
Senator Noland called attention to a request for full funding from the Apache Junction Unified
School District ( Attachment 2, page 2) and discussion followed.
Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Ms. Rando, that funding in the amount of
$ 116,186.00 be allocated based upon the letter from Apache Junction Unified
School District dated April 17, 1995. The motion carried.
Cochairman Smith verified Mr. Sifert's right to vote on Ms. Baier's behalf. He noted that the
Arizona Department of Education, Apache Junction Unified School District and the Apache
Junction Police Department should be notified of the Committee's action.
Senator Noland made available copies of a letter from Cartwright School District # 83
( Attachment 3) regarding its inability to utilize the resource officer component of the Safe
Schools Grant and requesting permission to use the $ 55,000 for other purposes. She noted that
the request does not follow the guidelines set out and proposed that a decision be made at the
next meeting.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
5/ 9/ 95
Officer Morrow called attention to the fact that a police officer placed on school grounds has
been pulled from the streets, and the hiring and training process takes time. He concurred that
police departments are concerned about continuation of the program.
Mr. Smith asked who pays for the cost of police officers during the summer months when school
is not in session.
Lieutenant Ontiveros said the City of Phoenix covers twenty- five percent of the cost, with the
school district responsible for the remaining seventy- five percent.
Ms. Rando said it is her understanding that officers are paid for the full twelve months
throughout most of the state.
Officer Morrow noted that most departments utilize their officers in summer programs offered
by the city.
Ms. Carter called attention to a letter from the Pinal County Department of Juvenile Court
Services dated April 18, 1995 ( Attachment 2, page 3) requesting $ 32,611.77 for a full- time
probation officer in the Florence Unified School District.
Senator Noland said that since the request is for the 1995196 fiscal year, it will be taken up at
the next meeting. She proposed that the next meeting of the Committee be set for Wednesday, .
May 31, 1995 at 9: 30 a. m.
A memorandum from Humboldt Unified School District No. 22 was made available to members
( Attachment 4).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10: 35 a. m.
Carole Price, Committee Secretary
( Original minutes with attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copies of
minutes on file with the Secretary of the Senate.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMI? TEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY -
5/ 9/ 95
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMlTTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
Minutes of Interim Meeting
Wednesday May 31 1995
Senate Hearing Room 1 - 10: OO a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 10: 10 a. m. by Cochairman Patti Noland and attendance was
noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Maria Baier
Hellen Carter
Senator Robert Chastain
Stan Morrow
Lynda Rando
Trudy Rogers
Representative Tom Smith, Cochair
Senator Patti Noland, Cochair
Members Absent
Nancy Kloss Representative Robert J. McLendon
Speakers Present
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate
Fred Thompson, CunSculum Director, Cartwright School District, Phoenix
Sergeant Dale Skjerping, Community Relations Division, City of Phoenix Police Department
Judy Bridegroom, Probation Officer and Safe Schools Program Coordinator, Pima County
Juvenile Court
Cochairman Noland invited Committee Members to introduce themselves and welcomed Trudy
Rogers, Manager, Comprehensive Training Unit, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE), to the
Committee. She reviewed the first six months of the School Safety Program, noting that the
$ 2.5 million was divided almost evenly between additional probation officers and school resource
officers, although some schools did not receive the award because they did not meet program
cri teria.
Ms. Rogers clarified that monies not spent prior to August 31 will revert to the general fund and
not to the School Safety Program.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
513 1/ 95
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate, made available copies of 25 responses
from school districts requesting continuation in the School Safety Program ( Attachment I), received
prior to the May 30 deadline. She noted that 57 schools were funded out of the 61 that applied.
Cochairman Noland pointed to the importance of getting the requested information from the
remainder of the schools as soon as possible.
Cochairman Smith submitted that the onus should be on the school districts to meet the deadline
or otherwise advise if they are unable to meet it.
Following discussion and analysis of surplus funds, it was determined that $ 144,000 remains in the
budget as of May 11, 1995.
Ms. Carter pointed out that programs at Dysart Unified School District No. 89 and East Valley
Institute of Technology ( EVIT) were underfunded, and proposed that the remaining funds be used
for those programs.
Further discussion and review of letters from Dysart Unified School District No. 89 seeking
$ 13,150, and EVIT requesting $ 21,000 ( Attachment 2), ensued. It was agreed that the actual
shortages total $ 15,130 for Dysart, and $ 13,000 for EVIT, for the 1994195 fiscal year.
Ms. Carter moved to allow EVIT an increase of $ 13,000 and Dysart Unified
School District No. 89 an increase of $ 15,130 for the 1994195 fscal year, upon
verification of the correct amount. The motion carried.
Following an inquiry by Senator Chastain, Senator Noland explained that the $ 40,000 allowed for
a probation officer ( see Attachment 2) includes related expenses and covers a full year. A
discussion of the limits on expenditure of the School Safety budget resulted.
Cochairrrian Noland noted that the deadline for previous participants in the program that wish to
continue next year is August 1, 1995. The letter requesting an evaluation, also due August 1, was
discussed at the May 9, 1995 meeting of this Committee and mailed two days later. A packet of
materials prepared by Arizona State Senate Research Staff, including a draft memorandum to all
Arizona Public School Districts, was made available for review ( Attachment 3) and Senator Noland
said it is her hope that ADE will mail the letters as it did in 1994.
Ms. Rogers asked if charter schools will qualify for the program. Cochairman Noland opined that,
because they are too new to have a record of school violence, charter schools would not be entitled
to participate in the program at this time. She pointed out that increased reports of incidents should
be anticipated because of the increased number of people to report to.
Discussion of the proposed memorandum followed; Mr. Smith suggested that it be prepared in letter
form and signed by the two cochairs, in order to call attention to the content. Senator Noland
concurred and said she anticipates the mailing the following day.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMI'TTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
2 513 1/ 95
Ms. Rando suggested that " Fiscal Year 1995196" be clearly stated on the School Safety Program
Funding Application ( Attachment 3, page 5), which was approved.
Noting that telephone calls have been received by all Members in regard to the program,
Cochairman Noland proposed that a point person, preferably from ADE, should be agreed upon
for the sake of consistency of the program.
Ms. Rogers responded that, while the Division of Student Services at ADE is being restructured,
she would agree to be the point person until an assignment to that role is made.
Senator Noland acknowledged Ms. Rogers' consent, but urged that overall authority rest with the
Member of this Committee.
Officer Morrow called attention to the April 24, 1995 letter from Cartwright School District # 83
( Attachment 4), discussed at the last meeting of this Committee, requesting permission to utilize
funds for purposes other than those authorized. He submitted that bicycles and a graffiti removal
machine do not fall within the original intent of the grant.
( Tape 1, Side 2)
Fred Thompson, Cumculum Director, Cartwright School District, Phoenix, the signatory to the
letter under review, explained that the District was unable to secure two resource officers despite
every attempt to do so, and recounted the rationale for the requested items.
Sergeant Dale Skjerping, Community Relations Division, City of Phoenix Police Department,
described the use and advantages of police call box stations.
Mr. Smith contended that specific criteria were instituted for use of the School Safety Program
funds and Cartwright's request falls outside the boundaries of those criteria.
Senator Noland concurred with Mr. Smith's analysis, but speculated that two- way radios could fall
under the criteria in conjunction with the hiring of officers.
Discussion followed on the use of video cameras in buses and the number of two- way radios
requested.
Ms. Carter moved that Cartwright School District # 83 be appropriated the sum
of $ 12,655.50 for thirty- nine ( 39) two- way radios for use in the School Safety
Program. The motion carried.
Cochairman Noland noted that the balance of the $ 55,000 will revert to the general fund.
Mr. Smith called attention to a request from Benson Public Schools for approval of miscellaneous
equipment ( Attachment 3, page 15), which constitutes a shifting of funds from personnel to
operating expenses and includes two executive high back chairs at a cost of $ 199.99 each. He
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
3 5/ 3 1/ 95
opined that, while it is not the intent of this Committee to nitpick individual expenditures, the
selection would appear to be inappropriate and should be reviewed against the original grant.
After discussion, Cochairman Noland proposed, with approval of other Members and Mr. Smith's
agreement, that Mr. Smith follow up on the Benson Public School District request.
Ms. Rogers submitted that a review be made of all spending against the original budgets. Chairman
Noland agreed that an oversight committee will need to work with ADE to review the grants if the
program develops into an ongoing one.
Ms. Tafoya called attention to a letter from Tucson Unified School District Department of School
Safety ( Attachment 5) requesting additional funding for the 1995- 96 school year, which she said
can be held for review at a later date. A request from Pima County Juvenile Court for utilization
of unspent grant funds ( Attachment 5) was considered in relation to the Juvenile On- Line Tracking
( JOLT) system.
Judy Bridegroom, Probation Officer and Safe Schools Program Coordinator, Pima County Juvenile
Court, testified that the inability to tie into the JOLT system has caused some problems for the
County because of the time spent by the eleven probation officers commuting between schools and
the Court. She pointed out that significant cost savings will be gained by use of a micro- computer
and modem at each of the eleven schools, at a t o t . projected cost of $ 19,800. Ms. Bridegroom
described the work of probation officers on the school campuses.
Ms. Rando moved that surplus funds in the Pima County budget in the amount
of $ 19,800 be used to purchase computers, modems and related items for each
of the eleven schools participating in the School Safety Program. The motion
carried.
Ms. Rogers suggested that schools be notified that they have until August 31, 1995 to spend the
funds, rather than June 30.
Cochairman Noland agreed that a memorandum should be sent from ADE clarifying the August
3 1 deadline, noting the goal to get funds to the schools by mid- August.
Cochairman Noland announced that the next meeting of the Committee will be on Thursday,
June 22, 1995 at 9: 30 a. m.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 11: 57 a. m.
. Tad>, - , .
Carole Price, Committee Secretary
( Original minutes with attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copy of
minutes on file with the Secretary of the Senate.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
4 513 1/ 95
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, June 22, 1995
House Hearing Room 2 - 9: 30 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
Cochair Smith called the meeting to order at 9: 30 a. m. and attendance was noted by the
secretary.
Present
Senator Bob Chastain
Maria Baier, Governor's Office for Children
Amy Ballard, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department ( filling in for Hellen Carter)
Officer Stan Morrow, City of Mesa
Linda Rando, Center for Law Related Education
Connie Stewart, Arizona Department of Education ( filling in for Trudy Rogers)
Senator Patti Noland, Cochair
Representative Tom Smith, Cochair
Absent
Representative Bob McLendon
Nancy Kloss, North High School
Speakers Present
Dominica Minore, Research Analyst, House of Representatives
Victoria Tafoya, Research Senate, Arizona State Senate
Paul Kosierowski, Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division
With regard to the chair issue, Cochair Smith mentioned that he telephoned several schools to
let them know that the price of the chairs was exorbitant and that the Committee intended that
school safety project monies be used for the express purpose of placing police officers and
probation officers on school grounds. He added that various Justices of the Peace approached
him to report that the school officer program is the best move the State has made for education
in several years.
Jt. Legislative Committee
on School Safety
06/ 22/ 95
Cochair Smith stated that the purpose of the meeting is to respond to any remaining questions
about the school safety program. He mentioned that the school fiscal year runs from July 1 to
June 30, and that some schools which offer summer programs have expressed an interest in
employing the officers during the summer vacation months. He said it will be left to the -
Committee to decide whether or not to extend the original program concept to accommodate full- *
time schools.
Dominica Minore, Research Analyst, House of Representatives, referred to a handout entitled
School District Appropriations ( Attachment 1 ) and explained that it reflects the total program
expenditure and remaining balance ( if applicable) from each school. She mentioned that
information contained on the last page indicates that thirteen schools did not respond to the
Committee's request for information.
Cochair Noland asked if the total expenditures reflected in the handout ( Attachment 1) are the
totals spent to date. Ms. Minore replied that although each school used a different approach,
most reported the amount of program monies they anticipated would be expended. She
emphasized that the figures reported are based on numerous factors.
Cochair Noland expressed concern that some schools failed to report their expenditures. She
further lamented that schools seem to be straying from the original program focus and expending
monies in a manner never intended by the Committee. She shared her opinion that schools
which do not comply with reporting requirements should be given low priority the next time that
grant monies are made available.
Cochair Noland noted that more accurate reporting on expenditures should be available once the
fiscal year is concluded.
Cochair Smith suggested that schools which do not report their expenditures be sent a letter
advising that they will receivr: low priority for future program funding.
Linda Rando, Center for Law Related Education, suggested that the Arizona Department of
Education ( ADE) have an opportunity to telephone the schools which failed to report before any
letter of reprimand is mailed. Cochair Smith disagreed with such leniency and remarked that
in attending the recent Education Summit, teachers repeatedly sang out for local control. He
emphasized that the need to assume responsibility is intrinsic to local control.
Ms. Minore mentioned that the thirteen schools which did not report their expenditures were
contacted by telephone prior to the Committee meeting.
Cochair Noland stated that the evaluation process is a very important component of the school
safety program and that the thirteen schools which failed to comply should be given low priority
for future grants.
Jt. LegislativeCommittee '
on School Safety
06/ 22/ 95 ,
Maria Baier, Governor's Office for Children, questioned the wisdom of punishing students for
mistakes made by school administrators.
Cochair Smith recommended that the Committee address a letter to the school principal and send
a copy to the District Superintendent and School Boird. Ms. Baier concurred.
Cochair Smith suggested that letters be sent to the schools notifying them that the Committee
will base program funding on the September 1 - August 30 fiscal year.
Amy Ballard, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department, shared that probation officers
are concerned that the delay of funds might affect officer/ school contracts.
Cochair Smith questioned whether the Committee is providing for twelve- month contracts.
Cochair Noland recommended that twelve- month contracts be accommodated because school-based
officers cannot let their caseloads lapse during the summer months. She also suggested
that once Fall is underway, a meeting be held to allow probation officers, police officers, and
school employees to discuss the program and any potential modifications.
Ms. Baier noted that as part of the evaluation process, schools should indicate whether they plan
to utilize program resources during the summer months.
Ms. Minore explained that a handout entitled School Safety Program Participants ( Attachment 2)
indicates which schools have submitted renewal paperwork.
In response to Cochair Smith, Ms. Minore mentioned that Bisbee is a new applicant to the
school safety program.
Cochair Smith stated that the Committee, as it did in 1994, will split into subgroups and visit
various schools, and then reconvene to either approve or disapprove applicant requests. Cochair
Noland pointed out that August 1 is the deadline for application to the school safety program.
Victoria Tafoya, Research Senate, Arizona State Senate, reported that five schools have
requested funds beyond their original budget request.
Cochair Noland asked whether the requests were for expansion purposes. Ms. Tafoya indicated
that there are a variety of reasons, ranging from employing additional probation officers to
simply increasing the salary of an officer.
Cochair Smith requested that Ms. Tafoya keep a record of all renewal applications which request
increased funding.
Cochair Noland referred to a letter from the Colorado River Union High School District # 2
( Attachment 3) which requests that unexpended program monies be used to fund the salary of
Jt. Legislative Committee
on School Safety
06/ 22/ 95
an existing Resource Officer. She emphasized that the law is very explicit in that program
monies cannot be used for supplanting purposes.
Cochair Noland also referred to a letter from Buckeye Union High School ( Attachment 4) which ;
requests that the program budget be amended to allow the purchase of a hand- held metal detector
and identification badges for students. She added that the Crane Elementary School District
submitted a letter ( copy not available) regarding a computer and printer request.
Cochair Noland mentioned that the schools should be advised that the cut- off date for
expenditures is not June 30. Ms. Minore indicated that Trudy Rogers with the Department of
Education is working on sending out a letter which clarifies that monies can be expended through
August 3 1.
Connie Stewart, filling in for Ms. Rogers, indicated that the letter of clarification will be mailed
to the schools by June 23.
Ms. Baier expressed an interest in knowing why some schools have a surplus of program
monies. She questioned whether unfulfilled functions are the cause of the excess funds. Cochair
Noland explained that some of the schools could not hire officers as quickly as was hoped,
which resulted in surplus funds.
Officer Stan Morrow, City of Mesa, moved that the Committee decline
Buckeye Union High School's request for a metal detector and identification
badges. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rando. The motion carried by a
majority voice vote.
Cochair Smith instructed that Buckeye Union High School be notified by letter of the budget
request denial.
Officer Morrow moved that the Committee decline the $ 17,500 funding
request made by the Colorado River Union High School District because it
is in direct conflict with the legislation ( in terms of supplanting). The motion
was seconded by Ms. Baier. The motion carried by a majority voice vote.
Paul Kosierowski, Program Manager, Juvenile Justice Services Division, explained that because
funding was originally established on a six- month basis, in order to transfer funds from the
school districts to the Juvenile Probation Department, it was necessary to enter into
intergovernmental agreements. He pointed out that these agreements have a termination date
of June 30.
Cochair Noland pointed out that ADE's budget, which will be in place on July 1, should be able
to support the Juvenile Probation Department until the school contracts are renewed on
August 1. Cochair Smith expressed his belief that with a little research, a legitimate solution
to this problem can be found.
Jt. Legislative Committee I
on School Safety
06/ 22/ 95
Cochair Noland suggested contacting Ted Fems with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee
to learn whether the courts can fund a certain amount up front and accept reimbursement at a
later date.
Cochair Smith scheduled a meeting for Thursday, June 29 at 10: 30 a. m. and promised to inform
Members who could not attend of the outcome.
Cochair Smith announced that the next full meeting of the Committee will be scheduled for early
August. Ms. Tafoya reminded that all applicant responses must be postmarked by the August
1 deadline.
After a bit of discussion, Cochair Smith announced that certain Committee Members will meet
on June 29 at 10: 30 a. m., and that the full Committee will meet on August 8 at 9: 30 a. m.
Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 10: 21 a. m.
Teresa Alvarez, ~ ecre*
( Original minutes and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
Jt. Legislative Committee
on School Safety
06/ 22/ 95
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMXTTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY
Minutes of Interim Meeting
Tuesday August 8, 1995
Senate Hearing Room 1 - 9: 30 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 9: 31 a. m. by Cochairman Tom Smith and attendance was
noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Tim Sifert, representing Maria Baier Stan Morrow
Paul Kosierowski, representing Hellen Carter Lynda Rando
Senator Robert Chastain Jaime Molera, representing Trudy Rogers
Representative Robert McLendon Representative Tom Smith, Cochairman
Members Absent
Nancy Kloss Senator Patricia Noland, Cochairman
Speakers Present
Dominica Minore, Research Analyst, Arizona House of Representatives
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate
Lisa Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE)
Cochairman Tom Smith reviewed the status of the School Safety Program.
Dominica Minore, Research Analyst, Arizona House of Representatives, summarized recent
correspondence between the Committee and School Districts ( Attachment 1) and noted that
copies of applications received have been distributed to each Committee Member. She remarked
that a letter to schools from the Arizona Department of Education ( ADE) explaining funding
procedures with a time deadline reminder has not, to her knowledge, been mailed.
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate, confirmed that all schools that
participated in the School Safety Program during the last school year have reapplied, with the
exception of Buckeye Union High School and Santa Cruz Valley Union High School. A
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
8/ 8/ 95
Renewal Paperwork Log of School Safety Program participants was made available .
( Attachment 2), together with a listing of School District appropriations ( Attachment 3).
Mr. McLendon proposed that a follow- up call be made to the two nonrenewing schools, bearing ;
in mind the considerable paperwork demanded of schools. He asked if information is available
which demonstrates how the schools utilized last year's funding.
Ms. Tafoya pointed out that each school was contacted in June concerning the revised budget.
She noted that the expenditures chart breakdown currently available is not a line item budget.
Mr. McLendon said he understands the Program has been a resounding success and asked if
funds are available to expand it to new applicants.
Mr. Smith agreed that some exceptional evaluations were received, but added his concern that
the paperwork process may be deficient.
Ms. Rando requested clarification of the total amount requested for the School Safety Program
for the 1995/ 96 school year.
Ms. Tafoya confirmed that requests totaling $ 4,675,261 were received from continuing
applicants, along with another $ 1,346,273 by new applicants.
Senator Chastain asked if limits are placed on use of equipment purchased with School Safety
Program funds. Mr. Smith observed that, while no limits can be placed on the equipment, it
is critical to keep the focus on the Program itself, with a view toward its expansion.
Lisa Graham, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE),
corroborated the success of the Program to date and noted that placing officers on school
campuses has made a sizable difference at relatively small cost.
Cochairman Smith asked ADE to make a presentation to the Committee and clarify the financing
of the Program. Ms. Graham agreed to do so.
Recognizing the short time frame remaining, Mr. McLendon asked if schools should be notified
that the Program will renew, in order to continue the payroll of officers. He urged that the
scope be kept narrow in order to expand to other schools, and stressed the need for a breakdown
of how the monies are spent.
Ms. Graham agreed that it is not clear that the Program will continue, although it has been her
belief that an understanding existed to that effect.
Cochairman Smith solicited comments to the following proposals:
that the Committee once again divide into groups in order to talk to and review
the applications of fifteen schools per group;
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
2 8/ 8/ 95
that the twenty- five new school applications be divided among the groups in
order to make a determination based on priority;
that ADE be asked to mail the letter concerning the Program for the 1995196
school year as soon as possible, and review funding at the next meeting of this
Committee;
that follow- up calls be placed to Buckeye Union High School and Santa Cruz
Valley Union High School.
Mr. Smith noted that there will be no lapse of funding because existing participants are funded
through the end of August.
Mr. Kosierowski recommended that schools be advised to focus on personnel rather than on
equipment. He suggested that more information might be gathered on training, operating and
travel costs to provide guidelines.
Mr. Smith maintained that it is incumbent on the districts to provide the information on how the
money will be spent.
In response to a query by Superintendent Graham concerning the increased funding for the
1995196 school year, Ms. Tafoya clarified that the figure was computed by doubling last year's
one- semester allocation ( Attachment 2).
Ms. Rando proposed that funding should be contingent on an evaluation.
Cochairman Smith announced that Member groups will contact and review the applications of
the schools listed as follows:
Group 1 ( Ms. Rando, Senator Chastain and Senator Noland) - 1 through 15;
Group 2 ( Ms. Baier and Representative Smith) - 16 through 30;
Group 3 ( Mr. Molera and Ms. Carter) - 31 through 45;
Group 4 ( Officer Morrow and Representative McLendon) - 46 through 61.
( Tape 1, Side B)
Mr. Molera confirmed that the letter from ADE will be mailed by August 9, 1995.
Following discussion concerning questions to be asked of the schools, Cochairman Smith
suggested the following guidelines:
a review of the school's request for funding for the 1995196 school year;
a review of the scope of the Program and a comparison with the 1994195 second
semester request. In this regard he cautioned that requests for computers, vehicles
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITI'EE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
3 818195
and administrative costs should be scrutinized and any revised requests should be
forwarded to Victoria Tafoya;
a request for an evaluation, with particular emphasis on a dec1ine. in incidents.
Mr. Kosierowski asked if computers linked to the Juvenile On- Line Tracking ( JOLT) system for
use by probation officers would be reviewed favorably. Mr. Smith urged that the value of the
system be considered carefully.
Ms. Tafoya enumerated the division of the twenty- five new applicant schools among the four
Member groups for review, noting that the packet of applications distributed to each Member
contains those applications for follow- up purposes.
Cochairman Smith announced that the next meeting of the Committee will be held on Tuesday
August 22, 1995 at 9: 00 a. m. He urged Members to contact him or Legislative staff if the
assignments agreed upon cannot be accomplished by that date.
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 10: 37 a. m.
A
/' / /' C &&'& - z- ( 1' 3
Carole Price, Committee Secretary
( Original minutes with attachments and tape on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk. Copy of ,,
minutes on file with the Secretary of the Senate.)
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
8/ 8/ 95
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty- second Legislature - First Regular Session
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY *
Minutes of Interim Meeting
Thursday August 24, 1995
House Majority Caucus Room - 9: 30 a. m.
( Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 9: 37 a. m. by Cochairman Tom Smith and attendance was
noted by the secretary.
Members Present
Maria Baier
Hellen Carter
Senator Robert Chastain
Representative Robert McLendon
Stan Monow
Lynda Rando
Jaime Molera, representing Trudy Rogers
Senator Patricia Noland, Cochairman
Representative Tom Smith, Cochairman
Members Absent
Nancy Kloss
Speakers Present
Richard Valdivia, Administrative Services Officer, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE)
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate
Keely Varvel, Senate Minority Staff
Jane Hunt, Program Director, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE)
Cochairman Smith reminded Members that the main purpose of this meeting is to allocate School
Safety funds to those schools that have requested continued funding for the 1995196 school year.
Consideration will then be given to the inclusion of new schools, utilizing any unspent monies
available. He noted that feedback on the School Safety Program has been very positive.
Richard Vaidivia, Administrative Services Officer, Arizona Department of Education ( ADE),
briefly explained how the funding will be distributed to approved schools and said he expects
initial funding to be made available by the end of August 1995.
In response to a query by Mr. McLendon, Mr. Smith noted that all previous participants have
applied for continuation, with the exception of Buckeye Union High School.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
, ON SCHOOL SAFETY
8/ 24/ 95
Victoria Tafoya, Research Assistant, Arizona State Senate, added that Santa Cruz Valley Union
High School, which was discussed along with Buckeye Union High School at the last meeting
of this Committee on August 8, 1995, has submitted its application for renewal.
Following discussion of disbursement of the funds, Mr. Smith remarked that the monetary
commitment should allow for decision making at the school level, and asked ADE to inform
participating schools how and when the funds will be distributed.
Ms. Carter distributed a memorandum from Don Shaw, Assistant Director of Juvenile Probation,
Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department ( Attachment I), in support of funding laptop
computers for the School Safety Program, and reported that virtually every Probation
Department in the state has contacted her in this regard. However, she submitted that if a
choice must be made between personnel and computers, the highest priority should be given to
placing officers on campuses, and recommended that the issue be considered at a future date.
Senator Noland noted that Marana School District in Tucson reports that computers provide for
improved communication and reduce driving time between schools and court.
Keely Varvel, Senate Minority Staff, added that Creighton School District has related that a
computer would retain the officer on the school site longer.
Mr. Smith reported that he has researched the Juvenile On- Line Tracking ( JOLT) system in
Maricopa County and has learned that the county has provided computers to some districts. He
proposed that the inclusion of computers might be considered on a case by case basis, adding
that a special appropriation might be requested from the Legislature if their value is
demonstrable.
Mr. McLendon pointed out that everything cannot be funded and recommended that the focus
remain on the need to place officers on as many campuses as possible.
Ms. Carter made available a memorandum and JOLT system explanation ( Attachment 2) and
concurred that personnel should receive priority funding.
Senator Chastain pointed out that funding a computer for one school would make it difficult to
refuse another, and submitted that a simpler method might be to fund no computers this year.
Officer Morrow added that requests to fund cars, desks and other non- personnel items were
received, and noted that he has recently learned that one school's $ 65,000 request included
$ 20,000 for cars for their officers.
Senator Noland proposed that only personnel be considered this year, and that a policy be
established with regard to purchase and use of computers and related equipment.
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY L
8/ 24/ 95
Mr. Smith observed that not all funds were expended last year because some schools started the
Program late in the semester. He proposed that schools should be allowed to carry funds
forward to the subsequent school year.
Cochairman Smith asked Members to divide into the following four groups for the purpose of
weighing the sixty- one requests for continuation:
Group 1 ( Ms. Rando, Senator Chastain and Senator Noland) 1 through 15
Group 2 ( Ms. Baier and Representative Smith) 16 through 30
Group 3 ( Mr. Molera and Ms. Carter) 3 1 through 45
Group 4 ( Officer Morrow and Representative McLendon) 46 through 61
Following fifty minutes of review by the four groups, Officer Morrow reported that it has taken
almost one full year in the City of Mesa to replace those officers who went from patrolling
streets to schools last year.
The meeting resumed with the following funding recommendations:
Group 1 recommendations, reported by Ms. Rando:
Casa Grande Union
Osborn
Creighton Elementary
Crane Elementary
Mesa Unified
Murphy
Mingus Union
Sahuarita Unified
Wellton Public Schools
Cartwright
Somerton
Alhambra
Woodard Junior High
Group 2 recommendations, reported by Mr. Smith:
Dysart Unified
Canyon Del Oro High School
Thatcher Unified
Gila County Safe Schools
East Valley Institute Technology
Buena High School
Safford Unified
Pinal County
Benson Public Schools
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
3 8/ 24/ 95
Yuma Union High School 55,825
Santa Cruz Valley 29,270
Prescott Unified 38,955
Balsz 122,800
Group 3 recommendations, reported by Ms. Carter:
Phoenix Union High School $ 1 16,571
Payson Unified 77,078
Pendergast 44; 075
Washing ton 40,857
Marana Unified 126,706
Laveen 96,000
Sunnyside Unified 74,000
Window Rock Unified 94,000
Colorado River Union High School 56,700
Gilbert High School 44,500
Kingman Elementary 70,762
Flowing Wells 79,246
K yrene 39,800
Coolidge Unified 34,111
Wilson Elementary 43,730
Group 4 recommendations, reported by Mr. McLendon:
Round Valley Middle School $ 71,874
Casa Grand Elementary 36,494
Whiteriver Unified 65,000
Florence Unified 33,361
Bullhead City Elementary 37,330
North Canyon High School 38,206
Group 4 recommendations, reported by Officer Morrow:
Phoenix Elementary $ 204,000
Apache Junction Unified 116,186
Williams Unified 27,500
Sacaton 45,000
Chloride 25,500
Tucson Unified 336,970
Cave Creek Unified 3 1,000
Total amount recommended: $ 4,380,555
JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
ON SCHOOL SAFETY
8/ 24/ 95
Following clarification of amounts requested by Sacaton Middle School and Sacaton Elementary
School, Mr. Smith noted that the $ 619,445 remaining out of the $ 5 million appropriation will
be used to fund schools not currently participating in the Program. He noted that more than
$ 1.3 million was received in new requests and asked Members to set priorities within their
8 groups for inclusion in the Program.
Discussion followed on the most effective method to prioritize new schools to be funded.
Senatdr Noland proposed that each group ascertain amounts currently requested, the amount if
only one officer is funded, and costs for salary and training of officers only. Ms. Carter noted
that two schools that have access to volunteer personnel have requested funding for supplies
only.
Following a short breakout period, the following reports were made by each group:
Group 1 personnel and training only ( Senator Noland reporting): $ 277,377
( Tape 1, Side B)
Group 2 personnel and training only ( Mr. Smith reporting): $ 272,981
Group 3 personnel and training only ( Ms. Carter reporting): $ 171,225
. Group 4 personnel and training