Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety: final report [1995] |
Previous | 1 of 10 | Next |
|
|
Small
Medium
Large
Extra Large
Full-size
Full-size archival image
|
This page
All
|
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
Object Description
TITLE | School Safety Program Oversight Committee annual report |
CREATOR | Arizona. Legislature. School Safety Program Oversight Committee. |
SUBJECT | Schools -- Safety measures -- Arizona; Schools -- Law and legislation -- Arizona; Public schools -- Arizona -- Safety measures. |
Browse Topic |
Education Government and politics |
DESCRIPTION | This title contains one or more publications. |
Language | English |
Publisher | Arizona. Legislature. School Safety Program Oversight Committee. |
Material Collection |
State Documents Legislative Study Committee Reports Annual Reports |
Source Identifier | LG 1.3:S 24/ |
Location | 43536513 |
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS | Original format was microfilmed. GIF files were then created of individual pages, and finally, a PDF version created. |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
Description
TITLE | Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety: final report [1995] |
DESCRIPTION | 67 pages (PDF version). File size: 3437.507 KB. |
TYPE | Text |
Material Collection |
State Documents House Received Reports Legislative Study Committee Reports |
Acquisition Note | Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us |
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT | Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution. |
DATE ORIGINAL | [1995] |
Time Period |
1990s (1990-1999) |
ORIGINAL FORMAT | Paper |
Source Identifier | LG 1.3:S 24/ 1995 |
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER | RMDHOUSE_JLCSS_FR_1995.pdf |
DIGITAL FORMAT | PDF (Portable Document Format) |
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS | Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library. |
REPOSITORY | Arizona State Library. Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library. |
File Size | 3437.507 KB |
Full Text | 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 |