JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Committee Report a. Establishment b. Membership c. Meetings d. Report of the Committee's Actions 11. Appendix A - Enabling Legislation 111. Appendix B - Committee Minutes IV. Appendix C - Sub-committee Material V. Appendix D - Funding Allocation 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 and select the applicants who were eligible to receive funding for participation in the School Safety Program. The School Safety Program was established pursuant to Laws 1994, chapter 20 1, section 25. The Program was continued by Laws 1995, chapter 158, section 5 and again by Laws 1996, chapter 284, section 74. 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 the 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; and Laws 1996, fifth special session, chapter 1. MEMBERSHIP The Committee is comprised of the following 10 members: Senate Members Senator Patricia Noland, Co-Chair Senator Robert Chastain House Members Representative Tom Smith, Co-Chair Representative Robert McLendon Public Members Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Lynne Dulin, Superintendent of Public Instruction's Designee Peggy Eggemeyer, Governor's Designee Marianne Jennings, Law Related Education Nancy Kloss, North High School Officer Stan Morrow, Mesa Police Department Lynda Rando, Law Related Education ** Staff Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst for the Judiciary Committee Debbie Mosbacher, House Assistant Research Analyst Victoria Tafoya, Senate Assistant Research Analyst ** PLEASE NOTE: Lynda Rando's appointment expired in June of 1996. MEETINGS The Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety met on the following dates: May 15,1996 June 6, 1996 June 17,1996 August 19,1996 The Sub-committee of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety met on the following dates: July 9, 1996 July 24, 1996 August 7,1996 For the 1996-1997 school year, the committee approved a total of 69 school district applications for School Safety Program funding which included 66 continuing participants and 3 new applicants. As in previous years, the committee was divided into subgroups to review the school district applications. After the subgroups developed recommendations, they presented their recommendations to the full committee. The committee then determined how to allocate available monies. The Department of Education distributed a total of $5,000,000 to new and renewal applicants. The committee's work included considering the program participants' special requests and appointing a formal subcommittee. The subcommittee was charged with recommending a program time line, improvements for the current application form and guidelines for approving funding. The subcommittee was also charged with recommending the assignment of responsibilities for administering the program, as well as reviewing the current evaluation process with suggestions for improvements. Participants who received funding during the 1995-1996 school year were directed to submit an evaluation of the Safe Schools Program. An analysis of the program evaluations is forthcoming from the Department of Education. APPENDIX A ENABLING LEGISLATION Laws 1996, c h a p t e r 284, s e c t i o n 73, s e c t i o n 74 and s e c t i o n 75 Sec. 73. Laws 1994, c h a p t e r 201. s e c t i o n 23. as amended by Laws 1995, c h a p t e r 158, s e c t i o n 4, i s amended t o r e a d : Sec. 23. J o i n t l e q i s l a t i v e committee on school s a f e t y : members hi^: d u t i e s : s t a f f : c o m ~ e n s a t i o n : d e f i n i t i o n A. The j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e committee on s c h o o l s a f e t y i s e s t a b l i s h e d c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g members: 1. Two members o f t h e s e n a t e , a p p o i n t e d b y t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e s e n a t e . n o t more t h a n one o f whom i s f r o m t h e same p o l i t i c a l p a r t y who s h a l l s e r v e as a d v i s o r y members. 2. Two members o f t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a p p o i n t e d by t h e speaker of t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , n o t more t h a n one o f whom i s f r o m t h e same p o l i t i c a l p a r t y who s h a l l s e r v e as a d v i s o r y members. 3. The g o v e r n o r , o r t h e g o v e r n o r ' s d e s i g n e e . 4. The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f p u b l i c i n s t r u c t i o n , o r t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s d e s i gnee. 5. A l a w enforcement o f f i c e r , a p p o i n t e d by t h e speaker o f t h e house o f representatives. 6 . A j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r , nominated by t h e c h i e f j u s t i c e o f t h e supreme c o u r t and a p p o i n t e d by t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e s e n a t e . 7. A p u b l i c school p r i n c i p a l , a p p o i n t e d by t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f p u b l i c instruction. 8. A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m t h e f i e l d o f l a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n , a p p o i n t e d by t h e g o v e r n o r . B. The committee s h a l l r e v i e w t h e p l a n s s u b m i t t e d by t h e i n i t i a l a p p l i c a n t s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e s c h o o l s a f e t y program and s e l e c t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s t h a t a r e e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e f u n d i n g based on s c h o o l s a f e t y needs. C. For purposes o f t h i s s e c t i o n . " a d v i s o r y member" means a member who a d v i s e s t h e committee b u t who i s n o t e l i g i b l e t o v o t e and i s n o t a member f o r t h e purposes o f d e t e r m i n i n g a quorum. D. The committee s h a l l e v a l u a t e t h e program and t h e r e p o r t t o t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e s e n a t e , t h e speaker of t h e house o f r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t h e g o v e r n o r , and t h e j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e a u d i t committee by O c t o b e r 1, 1995, & October 1. 1996. AND OCTOBER 1, 1997. Sec. 74. Laws 1994, c h a p t e r 201, s e c t i o n 24 i s amended t o r e a d : Sec. 24. Re~eal S e c t i o n 23 o f t h i s a c t i s r e p e a l e d f r o m and a f t e r M, 1% JUNE 30, 1998. Sec. 75. Laws 1994, c h a p t e r 201, s e c t i o n 25, as amended by Laws 1995, c h a p t e r 158, s e c t i o n 5. i s amended t o read: Sec. 25. P u b l i c s c h o o l s a f e t y Droqram ~ r o ~ o s a rl e: a u i r e m e n t s ; purDose: d e f i n i t i o n s A . A p u b l i c s c h o o l d i s t r i c t may a p p l y t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r r e q u e s t t o c o n t i n u e i n a s c h o o l s a f e t y program as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a c t f o r f i s c a l y e a r P 1996-1997 by s u b m i t t i n g a program p r o p o s a l o r a r e q u e s t t o c o n t i n u e t h e program by AttyiAPRIL 29. 1996 t o t h e j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e committee e s t a b l i s h e d i n s e c t i o n 23 o f t h i s a c t . New a p p l i c a n t s s h a l l be r e s t r i c t e d t o unencumbered monies which have been a p p r o p r i a t e d i n p r e v i o u s f i s c a l y e a r s . The program p r o p o s a l s h a l l c o n t a i n a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e school s a f e t y needs of t h e p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t i n c l u d i n g a program p r o p o s a l and p l a n f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g a l a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n program o r a p l a n which demonstrates t h e e x i s t e n c e of a l a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n program as a school s a f e t y p r e v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y and t o u t i l i z e t r a i n e d school r e s o u r c e o f f i c e r s and j u v e n i l e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s i n t h e s c h o o l s . B. The s t a t e b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n s h a l l a d m i n i s t e r t h e program i n c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e c o u r t s , l a w enforcement agencies and l a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n p r o v i d e r s . R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from t h e s t a t e b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n s h a l l u t i l i z e r e l e v a n t c r i m e s t a t i s t i c s and s h a l l v i s i t s c h o o l s l o c a t e d i n p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s t h a t submit program p r o p o s a l s i n o r d e r t o v e r i f y t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n t h e program p r o p o s a l s . C. The s t a t e b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n s h a l l d i s t r i b u t e monies t o t h e p u b l i c school d i s t r i c t s whose p l a n s have been approved by t h e j o i n t l e g i s l a t i v e committee on school s a f e t y . D. Monies r e c e i v e d by a pub1 i c school d i s t r i c t under t h e program s h a l l be spent t o implement t h e approved p l a n s . T h i s program supplements, n o t s u p p l a n t s , e x i s t i n g f u n d i n g p r o v i d e d by school d i s t r i c t s . E. The purpose of t h i s program i s t o p r o v i d e a p r o a c t i v e approach t o p r e v e n t j u v e n i l e r e f e r r a l s t o t h e c o u r t systems and d e t e n t i o n i n t h e . . department of -.--'L : l a b ; l ; t ; ~ JUVENILE CORRECTIONS, county j a i l s and t h e department o f c o r r e c t i o n s . F. For purposes o f t h i s s e c t i o n : 1. " L a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n " means e d u c a t i o n t o e q u i p c h i l d r e n and y o u t h w i t h t h e knowledge and s k i l l s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e law, school s a f e t y and effective citizenship. 2. " L a w - r e l a t e d e d u c a t i o n program" means a program designed t o p r o v i d e c h i l d r e n and y o u t h w i t h knowledge, s k i l l s and a c t i v i t i e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e l a w and l e g a l process and t o promote l a w - a b i d i n g b e h a v i o r w i t h t h e purpose t o p r e v e n t c h i l d r e n and y o u t h from engaging i n d e l i n q u e n c y o r v i o l e n c e and enable them t o become p r o d u c t i v e c i t i z e n s . APPENDIX B COMMITTEE MINUTES ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY Minutes of Meeting Wednesday, May 15, 1996 House Hearing Room 2 - 2:00 p.m. Cochair Tom Smith called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. and members of the Committee were asked to introduce themselves. MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF Victoria Tafoya, Senate Senator Robert Chastain Dominica Minore, House C. Diane Bishop, Governor's Office for Children Lynne Dulin, Department of Education Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Dept. Linda Rando, Center for Law Related Education Stan Morrow, City of Mesa Representative Tom Smith, Cochair MEMBERS EXCUSED Senator Patricia Noland, Cochair Representative Bob McLendon Nancy Kloss, North High School Cochair Smith explained the origination of the Committee and informed the members the original legislation had allowed only for the funding of probationary personnel and police officers and the equipment necessary for carrying out their duties on the school grounds. All comments he had heard regarding the School Safety Program had been positive, and Representative Smith said that he believed it was the best program the Legislature had come up with in many years. He further stated he had heard violent incidents in participating schools had decreased considerably since inception of the program and that he had attempted to get an additional $5 million in funding so that more schools could be included in the program. Representative Smith said it was his goal to make the program available to all schools who request the services but that the additional funding he had referred to had been part of the juvenile justice bill and had been defeated. At this point, 68 or 69 schools are involved in the program and Representative Smith was looking into the possibility of Federal funding in order to allow more schools to participate. Representative Smith further informed the Committee he had discussed additional funding by the Department of Education (DOE) with Lisa Graham Keegan and would also be approaching the Governor's Office for further assistance. He added Victoria Tafoya, Staff for the Committee, had done an outstanding job and had kept the Committee well organized and that he did not believe the Committee would have fared as well without her assistance. He expressed his appreciation for Ms. Tafoya's work. JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY May 15,1996 Page 2 Senator Chastain asked why there were "blanks" in one of the handouts distributed to the members entitled "School Safety Program - FY 1995-1996 Estimated Expenditures for Current Participants" (filed with original minutes). Victoria Tafoya, Assistant Research Analyst, Arizona State Senate, explained three of the schools had not yet turned in their applications which were supposed to be postmarked by April 29,1996,although they have stated they would do so in the near future. Ms. Tafoya next referred to the packet of letters with a handwritten number "6"on the top page (filed with original minutes) and explained the letter from Murphy Elementary Schools was a request for their Student Resource Offtcer to remain in the school district through June. Murphy Elementary Schools has the money to continue paying the officer and will still be reverting approximately $4,200to the General Fund. Ms. Dulin said she believed the request was an appropriate use of the funds. Ms. Murphy moved that Murphy Elementary School's budget be amended to allow for the Student Resource Officer to continue working for the District through June. The motion was seconded by Ms. Rando and CARRIED by voice vote. Representative Smith informed the Committee the second Murphy Elementary Schools request involved the purchase of a printer and supplies for the laptop used by the probation officer in daily duties. Ms. Bishop asked for guidelines regarding usage of the funds. Representative Smith acknowledged the original legislation was narrowly crafted in order to limit what the school safety funds could be used for. Ms. Bishop asked if the laptop had been paid for out of the school safety funds. Ms. Tafoya said she would check. Senator Chastain moved that Murphy Elementary School be allowed to use $500 of the remaining balance of the school safety funds for a printer. Ms. Carter seconded the motion which was CARRIED by voice vote. Ms. Tafoya next referred to #I5 of the packet which was a request from Woodard Junior High to use $3,000for the purchase of a computer system and designated phone line for the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS). Ms. Bishop asked how useful access to JOLTS is. Representative Smith said it provides a distinct advantage to juvenile corrections officers since they are able to keep better track of students who may be in the system. Ms. Carter added JOLTS is an integral part of probation officers' roles for tracking and cross referencing and is essential to the juvenile justice process. Ms. Bishop asked if only one school would be able to utilize the system. Ms. Carter explained the line could be JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY May 15,1996 Page 3 utilized by more than one school in the district. Ms. Rando moved that Woodard Junior High be allowed to use $3,000 of their unexpended school safety funds for installation of a computer system and dedicated line for the JOLTS program. Senator Chastain SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by voice vote. Ms. Tafoya referred the Committee members to item #42 in which Flowing Wells Schools requested an additional $5,817 for salaries through June 30, 1996. Representative Smith asked if there were any remaining funds that could be allocated to Flowing Wells. Ms. Tafoya noted there was approximately $1,000 that had not been allocated. Representative Smith said there was not enough money to grant the request, and asked Ms. Tafoya to let Flowing Wells Schools know he was sorry that he could not provide the requested funds. Ms. Tafoya informed the Committee Round Valley School had requested a transfer of funds to cover the cost of purchasing a FAWanswering machine for the work of the probation officer and to cover replacement of a windshield for the officer's car. Officer Morrow moved the transfer of funds be approved. SECONDED the motion which CARRIED by voice vote. Ms. Carter Representative Smith asked if there was any way to carry over unexpended funds from Fiscal Year 1995-1996 to 1996-1997. Ms. Tafoya explained a nonreversion clause had not been drafted in the legislation although that could change in future legislation. Representative Smith asked if DOE knew of any way to retain the funds for the "Safe Schools Program." Ms. Dulin said she did not know of a way, and that unexpended monies would revert to the General Fund. Representative Smith spoke in support of changing the legislation in future years to correct the oversight. Ms. Tafoya referred to item #50 which is a request from Bullhead City Elementary School District to spend the remaining monies for a probation officer's salary from April through August 1996. She added that it was her belief no action was necessary since the new budget would start on July 1, 1996 and would include the salary for July and August and that April through June should already be budgeted. Ms. Tafoya further informed the Committee the second request of the district was for purchasing instructional support supplies and materials. Representative Smith said he would not approve the purchase of the instructional materials as it was not within the purview of the funding. He asked Ms. Tafoya to let the district know of the budgeting for the probation officer and the Fiscal Year funding. He also stated he had not heard of the "Get Real About Violence" program and instructional materials referred to by the district, and asked for the Committee's input. JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY May 15,1996 Page 4 Ms. Rando said she was not familiar with the program but that the cost seemed overly expensive and that she did not have enough information to approve such an expenditure. Ms. Carter agreed, noting that the district did not have the funds for the program and would have to obtain additional funding. Officer Morrow said he had never heard of the program and that he also felt there was not enough information to approve such an expenditure. Senator Chastain asked what happens to the officers when school is out of session. Officer Morrow said that in Mesa, those officers are used during the summer as bicycle officers with regular duties which the city pays for. Bonnie Barclay, Safe Schools Coordinator, DOE, explained that she had reviewed the curriculum being discussed by the Committee in Bullhead City and that it was valid. Ms. Bishop said it appeared the school had already purchased the program materials and Officer Morrow agreed. Ms. Barclay said she did not discuss the purchase of the program materials with the district. Officer Morrow moved the Committee DISAPPROVE the request by the Bullhead City Elementary School District for instructional support materials and supplies. The motion was SECONDED by Ms. Bishop and APPROVED by the Committee. Representative Smith stated no action needed to be taken by the Committee on the first item listed by Bullhead City Elementary School District on the request, and repeated his request to Ms. Tafoya regarding notification of the District as to the status of probation officer's salaries for the months listed. Representative Smith stressed the need for the remaining three schools to submit their grant requests by the end of the week. REVIEW OF APPLICATION APPROVAL PROCESS Representative Smith explained all grant requests were supposed to be provided to Ms. Tafoya by April 29, 1996 so that DOE could notify the schools regarding the requests. He further added there is $5 million available. Ms. Tafoya informed the Committee requests exceeding $6 million had been received and that the requests would be divided up among the members who would work as "teams" to ascertain the actual dollars needed. She further added that 19 additional schools had requested funds this year and would need to be reviewed by the "teams." Officer Morrow noted the total of requested funds, with the additional 19 schools, stood at JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY May 15,1996 Page 5 $10 million. Representative Smith wondered if additional funds would be forthcoming from DOE, the Governor's Office and the Federal Government. He also expressed his willingness to approach leadership in the House and Senate for other ideas on funding. Ms. Bishop requested reports from the schools for evaluation on how successful the program had been. Representative Smith said he was committed to funding those schools already in the program, but that he wanted to figure out where excess fund requests might be able to be trimmed so that new schools could also participate in the program. Ms. Minore informed the Committee she had an evaluation of the Fiscal Year 1994-1995 program for the Committee's review. Ms. Bishop emphasized the lack of flexibility in reviewing the budget requests. Representative Smith expressed confidence in the Committee members and their ability to "trim" the budget requests. Ms. Rando requested a rating system checklist for prioritizing requests. Ms. Minore offered to provide the checklist to the Committee members by FAX. Representative Smith asked the Committee to do whatever necessary to review the requests and said he would continue to research Federal funding options. After questioning the Committee members regarding their preferences for a second meeting, Representative Smith announced the next meeting of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety would be Thursday, June 6 at 9:00 a.m. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Arlene Seagraves, ~ o m m g Secretary e (Tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate) ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY Minutes of Meeting Thursday, June 6, 1996 House Hearing Room 3 - 9:00 a.m. Members Present Senator Robert Chastain Representative Bob McLendon Scharlene DeHorney, Maricopa County Probation Dept. Lynne Dulin, Department of Education Peggy Eggemeyer, Governor's Office for Children Stan Morrow, City of Mesa Representative Tom Smith, Co-Chair Members Excused Senator Patricia Noland, Co-Chair Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Dept. Linda Rando, Center for Law Related Education Nancy Kloss, North High School Staff Victoria Tafoya, Senate Assistant Research Analyst Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst Debbie Mosbacher, House Assistant Research Analyst Co-chair Tom Smith called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. Representative Smith introduced the new representative Peggy Eggemeyer, from the Governor's Office for Children, and members of the Committee were asked to introduce themselves. Representative Smith said the first item would be to discuss possible funding for safe, drug-free schools. Representative Smith said every place he went he received positive comments concerning the school safety program, where a probation officer, and/or a police officer is placed on the grounds. He noted that he had called Washington, D.C. because he felt the funding for the State schools was very important, and asked if there were funds available for the program. He was told the State received $3 to $4 million from the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, and this program fell into the category. Representative Smith said he then called the State Department of Education and talked to Jaime Molera, and suggested the program receive 10% of the allocated $3 to $4 million, which would give the program about $300,000. He found out that the Governor's office receives about 20% of the money, so he discussed possible funding with several people in the Governor's office, including Peggy Eggemeyer. She had suggested having Rick Kidder talk to the Committee. Representative Smith then asked Mr. Kidder to speak. June 6, 1996 Page 2 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Rick Kidder, Director, Governor's Division of Drug Policy, gave a little background on the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, saying it was formula funding that came from the U.S. Department of Education to the Arizona Department of Education, and 20% of that figure came to the Governor's office, a figure of $1.28 million in FY 1996. Mr. Kidder said the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act provides 80% of the funding to the schools, and 20% to the Governor's ofice for other programs, upon which there are certain restrictions. That money is restricted almost entirely to non-school based programs; it is to run before and after school activities, and support communities in the Governors' Alliance Against Drugs (which exists in many states, Arizona included), Drug Awareness Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and local law enforcement. He noted that a year ago he would not have been able to allot any funds to Safe Schools, but there has been a change in the Act allowing some new flexibility. That change was that 10% of the $1.28 million or $128,000 previously restricted entirely to D.A.R.E. programs provided to public schools throughout the State, must now be given to local law enforcement rather than the schools. Mr. Kidder stated that they had enough carry-over funds this year to give money both to local law enforcement and D.A.R.E. The local law enforcement grants are more flexible and will allow a law enforcement agency to make application on a formula basis, based on the number of students to be served. They would be able to apply for funds that would include programs such as D.A.R.E., Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.), and before and after school activities. Mr. Kidder said the Safe Schools program would fall logically into the local law enforcement grant opportunity. He stated the Division of Drug Policy was more than willing to take funds restricted for local law enforcement and put Safe Schools as an option for that money. Mr. Kidder said the options must be presented and if the schools chose to use the money for Safe Schools, the Division of Drug Policy would be more than happy to allocate it for that purpose. Mr. Kidder said the schools will need some salesmanship on making that choice as many will choose D.A.R.E. because they feel it is important to them, others will choose gang education, which is also important, but they may also make the choice of safe schools. Representative Smith asked if the Committee selected applicants based on the number of violent incidents, could the Committee pick a few schools in need of help, then call the schools and tell them they had been selected for the Safe School Program. The schools would be told the Committee could provide a certain amount of money for a Safe School Program, but that the schools would have to contact the local police department or probation department and request money for the program. Mr. Kidder replied that could be done because of the formula basis of the money. He noted that this year, after reviewing the D.A.R.E. applications, the districts received about 30$ per child. The larger the district, the more it received. He noted they were not restricted to that and perhaps could set up a program whereby the schools perceived to have the greatest risk of violence could receive a slightly larger per child amount, those with little violent activity, a slightly smaller amount. It might be possible for one school to receive 20$ per child and other schools with a higher amount of violence could receive 40 to 50# per child. No funds can be provided without the partnership between the school district and the local law Joint Legislative Commission on School Safety June 6,1996 Page 3 enforcement. They both have to be partners. Even though the funds are sent to the local law enforcement, they are influenced by the school district, and they both have to sign the application for the grant. Representative Smith said that was how the Safe Schools Program worked now. It also had to be signed by the law enforcement officer in the district. He felt the Committee should take some time to review the schools who had applied for the Safe Schools Program, identify possible recipients, contact them with the application information, ascertain the number of students, and get back to Mr. Kidder while the schools contacted the law enforcement agency, and then coordinate efforts. Mr. Kidder thought that would be acceptable. Representative McLendon asked if the funds could be used for things like the J.O.L.T. System. He felt that there were some schools with probation officers present who were not hooked up to the J.O.L.T. System. Representative Smith asked Mr. Kidder if he was familiar with the J.O.L.T. System, and he replied he was not. Representative McLendon explained it was the Juvenile On-Line Tracking System, which allowed the probation officer to have up-to-date information regarding the probationers enrolled in the school. He noted that at Yuma High School, where he teaches, the probation officers were over loaded. He had experienced frustration in trying to reach and speak with probation personnel because they were spread so thin. Representative McLendon felt that in addition to the personnel assigned schools, the equipment was needed to enable them to perform their job better, and he thought the J.O.L.T. System was applicable under the Safe Schools Program. Representative Smith noted they had included police officers, probations officers and administrative support in the program. He said that often in rural areas the probation office and schools were located a great distance from the detention center, which required extensive phone calls or travel, and the J.O.L.T. System within the school would provide immediate information. Representative McLendon added it enabled the probation officers to keep on top of a situation which might become serious. His question to Mr. Kidder was could the J.O.L.T. System be an appropriate use of the funds. Mr. Kidder said that to the best of his knowledge, as long as the lead partner was the local law enforcement with the schools, they may bring in other partners including probation officers, and if they wanted to use the funds for that purpose, he felt it would be acceptable. Lynne Dulin, Department of Education (DOE), said that part of the Federal Safe and Drug Free Schools requirement is to coordinate, and she worked very closely with Mr. Kidder. She offered to coordinate the additional funds available through the Governor's Division of Drug Policy to see that the funds were appropriately awarded to the schools. She felt the J.O.L.T. System based on the DOE'SFederal Safe and Drug Free requirements would be an appropriate use of the funds. In addition to the entitlement funds the schools are currently getting, the schools can apply for additional funds if they are high need. She June 6, 1996 Page 4 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety stated the schools were not limited to the funds under the Safe and Drug Free Act, and are now in the process of sending in an additional application for high need funds based on such criteria as high incident of violence and crimes, high rates of arrest, illegal gang activities, and high rates of referral of youths to juvenile court. Some districts will be receiving additional funds on top of Federal allocation. Representative Smith asked what the Committee could expect from the DOE for additional funding for the program. Ms. Dulin said that other than the funds just referred to for high need, the administrative funds the department received go toward staffing to administer the Federal program. They have combined applications for those programs, so that when monitoring a school for Federal funds, they also monitor for the Safe School Program. She felt there would not be other funds available. Representative Smith rephrased his question, and asked if the Committee reviewed the applications for funding of the Safe Schools Program, and came up with a list of four or five schools with high incidents, could it come to the State Department of Education, and request funds that could help the program. Ms. Dulin repeated she did not have additional funds, and did not know of any available. He then asked if letters were sent to the schools receiving the Safe School funds, asking them to support the Safe School Program by giving up 10% of their funding (he noted that could be $328,000 which could help four or five other schools), did she think that could happen. Ms. Dulin said she didn't believe the schools would be willing to turn back any of their funds. She suggested that innovative funding be pursued with business. Everyone has had favorable comments from the superintendents, probation and law enforcement officers on the effectiveness of the Safe School program, but the schools are in need of funds. Representative Smith asked if there would be a problem with trying such an approach, and Ms. Dulin said there would not. Ms. Dulin said possibly in daily discussion with the schools the DOE could approach the feasibility of that. She suggested they look at the applications for the high need fund and see how many actually apply, and see how many the Department of Education is able to reach. Representative Smith concurred. Senator Chastain said that the 304 per student in the small school in which he had taught amounted to about $450, and he felt that would not accomplish much. Mr. Kidder said it was true that when it came to monies allotted to the schools, it was all population based whether in California, New York or Arizona, and did amount to 30$ per child. He felt $450 would have been one of the larger allocations as there were a few at $100 or $200. Mr. Kidder noted that schools that tried to put on anti-violence programs had to do a lot of creative work with Federal and State funds, as well as seeking other sources, including volunteer police officers for D.A.R.E. He continued that the sad reality was that pertaining to substance abuse programs, the State was very lucky to have received the same funding it had received last year. The program was almost dissolved Joint Legislative Commission on School Safety June 6, 1996 Page 5 at the Federal level. If it had been dissolved, there would be nothing in the State of Arizona in the schools that would take care of substance abuse or violence prevention programming. He conceded that $450 was not very much, but could mean the difference between whether they had a program or nothing. Representative Smith asked if it was worthwhile for the Committee to look at the applications received for the Safe Schools, check on the top schools in each group based on incidents, and pick out 4-5 schools, and pursue the concept if funding could be had. Senator Chastain said that if they were his schools, he would say yes. Representative McLendon said the Committee felt Safe Schools was a great program, and that there were many schools applying because they had heard of the program and wanted to be involved, but the Committee was caught in a dilemma of what to do with the programs that they now had, and did not feel there would be a good response from schools when asked to remit 10% of their funds. He noted an Estimated Expenditures Chart in his packet which indicated there was a surplus of $1.3 million, and wondered if it reverted back to the General Fund, and if it did, was not that money the Committee could use. He felt if it was allocated money schools did not spend, the Committee should look at the current year budget for those schools and secondly for possible additions to the program. Representative Smith reminded the Committee that the program had not been funded this year, which he felt a tragedy since it was a good program that worked. His feeling was to try alternatives: (1) to let the schools that they had funded as far as the original $5 million could go; or (2) use the excess mentioned by Representative McLendon if legal; or (3) work to get additional funds for one or two more schools. He felt that if they could add even one or two schools to the program, a lot would have been accomplished. Representative McLendon wanted to know when the $1.3 million was going to revert, and if it was going to revert, the Committee should try to prevent that as long as there were schools with needs. Analyst Dominica Minore stated that the $5 million appropriation did not have a nonlapsing provision, so anything left does revert to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year. Representative Smith asked if there was any way to stop that. Ms. Minore said at this point that was the way the budget was for this year, and she knew of no way to change it. Representative Smith felt it common sense to use the excess monies for the program, and asked Ms. Minore to see if there was anything that could be done. She said she would. Representative McLendon suggested contacting those in charge of the budget and asking them if monies appropriated had to actually be spent before the end of the fiscal year. If not, what happens if that money is obligated. He also suggested if the money is not June 6,1996 Page 6 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety obligated and if there was a Special Session, that the Committee bring it up as a topic to . be added to the Special Session. Representative Smith concluded the Committee would (1) find out if the money could be obligated by June 30 for next year by hiring police officers for the next fiscal year; (2) see what action needs to be taken if there is a Special Session to get the money added on to next year's budget; (3) contact Mr. Kidder for funding; (4) check with State Department of Education to assist the program. He stated the Committee should select, without promise, five or six schools in order of priority to be funded by the Safe Schools Program. Each group of the Committee should review its schools applications, and in a week or 10 days will be able to identify the schools with need and the money involved. Representative McLendon moved that the Committee find out if the excess money could be obligated, proceed to bring it to Special Session if necessary, contact the Governor's Division of Drug Policy for additional funds, and contact the DOE for any further funds, and that they should begin researching schools in need. The motion was seconded by Senator Chastain, and APPROVED by the Committee. Representative Smith noted letters from two districts requesting additional funds. Analyst Minore explained the requests were from Sunnyside Unified School District and Yuma County Juvenile Court Center for Crane Junior High (filed with the original minutes). She noted the Sunnyside packet contained two requests; in the first they requested twoway radios for their probations officers at all three funded schools, and projected the cost between $1,000 and $1,500. The District has $8,500 left over in this year's funding. An updated School Safety Program FY 1995-1996 Estimated Expenditures for Current Participants chart was distributed and discussion followed, and it was noted the excess balance was projected at $940,364, and not $1.3 million as Representative McLendon had indicated earlier. Representative Smith redirected them to the issue of approving money for Sunnyside to buy two-way radios, and discussion followed. Representative McLendon moved that the Committee approve the $1,500 for two-way radios for Sunnyside Unified School District. Mr. Morrow seconded the motion. The motion was APPROVED by the Committee. Mr. Morrow noted that the radios were a life-line for an officer on campus who ran into a problem where he might not have access to a phone. Senator Chastain commented that most of the schools had the equipment, purchased through their regular budget, and he was afraid if one school was allowed to buy with Safe School funds there would be many more requests. Representative Smith said he felt the Committee should decide each request individually. Representative McLendon commented that evidently Sunnyside had been frugal, and should be commended, and that the need fell within their balance. Joint Legislative Commission on School Safety June 6,1996 Page 7 Analyst Minore presented the second request from Sunnyside which was to purchase a student survey which would sample 800 students and cost $1,500. The school's letter outlined how it would use the survey. Representative Smith asked if the survey would be purchased from some national organization, and Ms. Minore replied they did not supply that information. Representative Smith felt that the best surveys were most effective made at the local school area. Ms. Dulin agreed with Representative Smith, noting the DOE has its own survey and there was a national survey from the Center for Disease Control which covered a lot of the same information, and that she was working with Mr. Kidder's ofice on another survey to gather similar data. The DOE is comparing local data to national data. Representative McLendon stated there was a similar survey of seniors done at Yuma High School, which was aided by the Extension Services of the University of Arizona and had not cost anything. He felt Sunnyside could approach the University of Arizona and that the request should not come through the Committee. Representative McLendon moved that the request be DENIED. Mr. Morrow seconded the motion, and the motion CARRIED. Analyst Minore presented the request from Crane Junior High School (filed with the original minutes) on Yuma County Juvenile Court Center requesting a computer and a phone line for their probation officer. They would also be using excess funds to purchase that. Representative McLendon said his comments about the J.O.L.T.S. program applied here, and he felt it a valuable tool. Representative Smith asked exactly what would be purchased, and Ms. Minore said a computer system and the designation of a phone line at the school to access the J.O.L.T. System. She did not know the total cost. Peggy Eggemeyer questioned Crane's budget balance which was shown as zero. Ms. Minore reiterated they were using excess funds, and that the information may not have been provided on the balance yet. Representative Smith suggested contacting them, finding out what the system would cost and where the money would come from. He asked if a Yuma County representative was present. Terry Pray, Probation Officer at Crane Junior High School, came forward. He stated Crane would like the computer to keep in contact with the Probation Department and to keep the status of kids on probation at Crane which is always changing. He stated one of the other junior high schools in town had purchased a system which cost in the neighborhood of $3,000. Representative Smith questioned how the other school had purchased the computer system, and Mr. Pray replied through the Safe School grant. Representative Morrow inserted they had approved some J.O.L.T. Systems previously. June 6,1996 Page 8 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Representative Smith questioned how many children were on probation at Crane Junior High School, and Mr. Pray said in the neighborhood of 20. He explained Crane used to get a print-out from the Probation Department but it was never current, as the status of the children on temporary probation was always changing, but there were those who were on regular or intensive probation, and he never had a current list involving both groups of children. Senator Smith asked if having the J.O.L.T. System would solve the problem, and Mr. Pray confirmed it would. Senator Smith asked if Crane did not get the J.O.L.T. System what had to be done to do his job, and Mr. Pray replied it required extensive telephone calls. Representative Smith confirmed that the cost was around $3,000, and Mr. Pray said to the best of his knowledge. Representative Smith reconfirmed that was coming out of excess funding from this year, and Mr. Pray answered there was some question about how much money they had. He stated that before the Probation Department went to the principal with the request, the Department was under the impression there was $7,000 in excess, but this morning he was informed the balance was zero, so he was not sure where the confusion was. The principal had called the District Office and was told there was money in another line item which could be transferred. Senator Chastain noted he had talked to the principal, Mr. Klee, as Crane was one of the schools he had been checking on, and he did not recall Mr. Klee saying they had any money available. However, he felt if Crane did have excess funds, they should be allowed to use it for a J.O.L.T. System. Mr. Pray said he wanted to be sure the money was available because the District had no money to make it up. Peggy Eggemeyer asked how many J.O.L.T. Systems Safe Schools had supported throughout the State, and if one of the junior highs in Yuma had a system, was there a way to network them. Mr. Pray replied they would tie in at the court center, and it was necessary to have a computer and a private telephone line for security reasons. Representative McLendon moved if Crane School District had excess monies from their grant that they be allowed to spend the money for a J.O.L.T. System. Senator Chastain seconded the motion, and the motion was APPROVED by the Committee. Representative Smith said the next item was renewal applications. He asked for an explanation of the Renewal Programs Chart (filed with the original minutes.) Bonnie Barclay, Program Manager for Safe School, Department of Education, explained the chart was still in draft form but was strictly for the Committee's edification to evaluate schools that had asked for further funding. She explained the legend showing whether evaluation material had been submitted; the '94-'95 completion reports had been returned to the Department of Education; balances from the 1994-95 fund had been returned to the General Fund; or the balances had not been returned. She had also noted Joint Legislative Commission on School Safety June 6,1996 Page 9 if the school's application was late. She noted that Window Rock had not submitted any information although they had been contacted numerous times. Representative Smith questioned whose committee Window Rock was on. Senator Chastain commented that last year several schools had not submitted information because the Safe School representative had been fired or left, and wondered if that might have happened to Window Rock. Senator Chastain suggested the superintendent be contacted by phone as Ms. Barclay had said all work was done by letter, and Representative Smith said he would call personally, and asked Ms. Barclay to supply the telephone number. Representative Smith noted at the last meeting there had been a problem because some of the schools had exceeded their budgets from last year, and wondered if that problem had been resolved. He asked Ms. Tafoya if amended budgets had been received from all the schools, noting he had contacted his group. Ms. Tafoya said the amended budgets usually went to the subcommittee member for each group of schools; she had received the budgets from those contacted by Representative Smith. Ms. Eggemeyer said that she had the amended budgets for the schools she contacted, unless they were multiple schools, which she had given Ms. Tafoya. Senator Chastain noted that he had contacted all the schools in his group, and suggested the four who were requesting additional funds submit an amended budget for no more than last year's budget. Representative Smith elected to go down the list, asking each member to report on their group of schools and the status of the budget. Representative McLendon clarified saying the schools which had requested additional budget thought the legislation for additional funding was forthcoming, which had not happened, and therefore no budget could be expanded unless it was a dire emergency. Representative Smith concurred; however, he felt that where there were schools which submitted budgets for less, the Committee could pick up the excess, add it to the potential money from the Governor's Division of Drug Policy and possibly use it to fund another school. Representative McLendon agreed that the Committee should find a way to use the excess funds so that they did not revert to the General Fund, and reiterated he would not be willing to approve any budget in excess of the 1995-96 budget. Representative Smith wanted to know who kept a record of the amended budgets so that later in the year there would be no confusion about the budget. Ms. Dulin replied that there was a file on each State school in the Department of Education so that information would be kept by her office. Ms. Minore said that in the past the members had done the phone calls, and the analysts did not keep track until the budget was established. Representative Smith then asked if everyone had made their phone calls to the groups and had received a signed amended budget. He wanted something in writing to indicate the schools understood the budget for 1996-97 would be the same as 1995-96. Ms. Tafoya stated that was why a letter is sent to each school telling them what their budget will be. She said in that letter they could request an amended budget so the Committee could see June 6,1996 Page 10 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety how they were going to spend it. The letter had not been sent yet, as the Committee was meeting today to approve the budgets. Ms. Minore said that the members should have come to Committee with that information today so that budgets could be approved. Representative Smith said the intent then was to send a letter stating how much money had been appropriated to the school for the specific year, and in that letter it would be stated that if this money was less than requested for the 96-97 school year please submit an amended budget. That was confirmed. Ms. Tafoya asked that they go down the list so that they could get the budget numbers for each school. Senator Chastain discussed Lynda Rondo's and his lists. Representative Smith read his list. Ms. Eggemeyer gave the results of her calls. Ms. Eggemeyer asked for clarification on probation officers being paid as one full-time employee (FTE), since school was in session for 9 months, what happened with the other three months of their time. Representative Smith said they were sometimes used in a year-round school routine, or other activities, and asked Mr. Morrow to further explain. Mr. Morrow said he did not know what every campus did, but in Mesa many were year round schools so the officers were used there, or put into patrol divisions wherever needed. Ms. Eggemeyer explained that in some areas the salaries were raised and benefits raised, so the districts were saying they could not cut their budgets. She felt they should be more creative in financing. Representative Smith said he believed in local control, and each district should work out a contract with their police department. Mr. Morrow commented that each department was glad to receive whatever funds they were allocated because they believed in the Safe School Program. Ms. Dulin commented that she and Hellen Carter had worked as a team, and that some of the budgets were higher due to salaries, so they needed to revaluate them as they were not consistent. She and Ms. Carter had also believed that those with reductions could be used to offset some of the increased budgets. The list was read, noting she felt particularly uncomfortable with Marana Unified and Gilbert, and would like to revaluate them, and let Ms. Tafoya know by Wednesday. Representative Smith asked Ms. Tafoya if that would be satisfactory. Ms. Tafoya said they would possibly have to hold another meeting so that the Committee, as a whole, could approve those budgets, but it would be delaying the process. It was decided to hold off on this section (Section 3) of the list and another meeting would have to be held to approve the budgets. Ms. Eggemeyer asked for clarification of the application process to the Safe Schools Program, and Representative Smith explained the Committee had established a priority list from applications of those deemed most needy of the program. The Committee had worked on the list of those needs until the $5 million appropriation was expended. Each school was sent a letter saying they would receive a certain amount for their Safe School program. This year those previously funded would be given priority as there had been no further funding. If they asked for additional funds, they would have to compete with those June 6, 1996 Page 11 Joint Legislative Commission on School Safety new schools submitting applications. The Committee had hoped to be able to incorporate some new schools into the program with the savings from those who requested less money this year. The schools had been asked to submit a survey of students and parents as to whether the school was safer. If a school does not meet the time lines, they can be removed from the program. Ms. Eggemeyer clarified that if the school did not have complete goals and objectives, that was taken into consideration during the review of the program. Representative Smith said that was correct. Ms. Eggemeyer felt the person preparing the application should use current data and not duplicate the previous year's application. Representative Smith suggested that if she was concerned with an application, she call the school and discuss it with them, or if all else failed, to bring it to his attention and he would call personally. Some discussion was held on clarifying various schools' budgets. Mr. Morrow and Representative McLendon read their list, all of whom would be receiving the same as last year, with the exception of one who had requested less. The extra schools added last year were not in order, and Senator Chastain had not called Manuel and Sacaton, but will be in contact immediately. It was decided that a meeting was needed next week. Representative Smith wondered if the schools were split into groups, if the applications could be reviewed to see what schools were a top priority. Ms. Tafoya said applications were submitted when the renewal forms were sent out. Representative Smith said to identify about eight schools, two from each group, as priority schools to receive any additional funds that might be forthcoming. Monday, June 17, 1996, at 10:OO a.m. was chosen as the date of the next meeting. Representative Smith said they would discuss the priority schools from each group, and approve the budget. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, b Karen Neuberg Committee Secretary (Tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate) ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY Minutes of Meeting Monday, June 17,1996 House Hearing Room 3 1:00 p.m. - Members Present Senator Robert Chastain Representative Bob McLendon Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Dept. Lynne Dulin, Department of Education Peggy Eggemeyer, Governor's Office for Children Lynda Rando, Center for Law Related Education Representative Tom Smith, Co-Chair Members Excused Senator Patricia Noland, Stan Morrow, City of Mesa Nancy Kloss, North High School Staff - Victoria Tafoya, Senate Assistant Research Analyst Dominica Minore, House Research Analyst Debbie Mosbacher, House Assistant Research Analyst Safe Schools Program Funding Co-chair Tom Smith called the meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representative Smith quickly reviewed the last meeting saying he had pushed hard in his attempt to get additional funding for the Safe Schools Program. He had discussed the idea of taking funds left from the 1995-96 fiscal year and using them for funding additional schools during the 1996-97 fiscal year with the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) and the Department of Education (DOE) and could not get approval. There was a difference of opinion as to whether the funds could be used. He felt he would have to go to the Attorney General's office, and there was no time for them to come together as today was the last time they could appropriate funds. He noted the two other programs remaining as options for the school districts would require a personal effort by the superintendent of the school to (a) contact the Department of Education to apply for 'high need* or discretionary funding, or (b) contact the local police department and sign a contract with them to apply to the Governor's office for a portion of the federal funds under the Safe and Drug Free School and Communities Act. June 17,1996 Page 2 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Lynda Rando, referring to the minutes of the previous meeting, questioned what the funds Representative Smith mentioned could be used for, and under what Ad did the funding fall; she wanted to know if it was Safe and Drug Free money. Representative Smith Conf~rmedthat it was. Ms. Rando further clarified that it could be used for the same things that were allowed in the fiscal grant, i.e., salaries and prevention programs. Representative Smith again confirmed saying he had spoken with a representative of the Federal Government. Lynne Dulin clarified there were restrictions on how much can be used for probations officers, noting the 20% restriction; the other monies could be law related education, prevention and after school activities. Representative Smith repeated the superintendents were going to have to contact DOE and work out the application with the Department. Ms. Dulin replied that the applications had already gone out to each school. The superintendents may or may not be applying for the funds, but should be encouraged to fill out the extra part of the application for the 'high need" funds. Representative Smith asked to whom questions should directed. Ms. Dulin said they could contact her or the DOE Team Leader of the Safe and Drug Free Schools, Chris Mclntier, who was in the audience. Representative Smith questioned Ms. Mclntier if she was familiar with everything they had discussed, and Ms. Mclntier replied she was. He asked for the telephone numbers of Ms. Dulin and Ms. Mclntier to be published for use in the event of questions. (Ms. Mclntier submitted her card to the secretary, a copy of which is attached to the original minutes.) Ms. Mclntier's phone number is (602)542-8728. Ms. Dulin may be reached at (602)542-8709. Ms. Rando asked if a school received Safe School monies was prohibited from applying for additional money. Ms. Dulin said schools which met the 'high need' criteria could also apply for 'high need' funds in addition to their Safe School entitlement. Representative Smith recommended that new schools be considered first, and Ms. Rando agreed. Representative Smith continued saying discussion had been held with Mr. Kidder of the Governor's Division of Drug Policy, and under that Division funds were allocated for the Drug Awareness Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) programs, and they would include the Safe Schools program, so that schools now had three options of applying for those funds. He clarified that the Division money was distributed through the police departments and that the superintendents would have to talk to the local police departments and ask them to apply for the funding. Recapping, Representative Smith said the superintendents had two options: (1) apply to the State Department of Education for discretionary or 'high need" funds; and (2) contact the local police department and ask it to apply to the Govemds ofice for monies from the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act. Ms. Rando questioned the source of Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety June 17,1996 Page 3 the monies supplied through this act, and Ms. Dulin clarified it was the U.S. Department of Education. Representative Smith noted that if the Committee found a few more schools to which the alternative funds could be given, a letter or phone call should be directed to the superintendents telling them how to apply. He asked Research Analyst Victoria Tafoya if that was satisfactory, which she confirmed. Approval of Renewal Applications Ms. Dulin and Hellen Carter had faxed the results of their calls to their list of schools (Section 3) to Research Analyst Dominica Minore. Ms. Carter noted that a number of their schools had asked for increased funding, but had been contacted by Ms. Dulin and herself, requesting them to accept last year's budget. The schools agreed and submitted secondary budget applications. Representative Smith asked Ms. Minore if she had the numbers for every school. Ms. Minore replied she was lacking budget requests from Laveen and Window Rock, to which Ms. Carter said they did not have them either. Representative Smith said he had talked to the superintendent at Window Rock, who had indicated he would fax a request. Ms. Tafoya said that she had received applications from both those schools, which she had sent out prior to the last meeting, and Ms. Carter and Ms. Dulin should have received them. They indicated they had not. Ms. Carter said that they had received no answer even to their second call and follow up. Representative Smith said he had told the superintendent at Window Rock to contad Bonnie Barclay at the Department of Education, and perhaps it had been sent to her. Ms. Minore said that as of last Thursday, neither she nor Ms. Barclay had received anything. Ms. Tafoya volunteered to retrieve both schools' applications from her office. Ms. Carter noted a list supplied by Ms. Tafoya indicated Laveen had dropped their budget from last year's $96,000 to $80,200, and that Window Rock would be allocated $94,000, as received last year. Representative Smith recollected about $4,900,000 had been appropriated last year from the $5 million the Committee had received. Ms. Minore noted that if Laveen received the $80,200 and Window Rock received the $94,400 it had requested for this year, that $4,922,515 would have been spent, leaving a remainder of $77,485 from the original appropriation. Representative Smith said perhaps part of that money could be given to one of the schools that had requested funding. He stated that upon Ms. Tafoya's return, they would verify the numbers, and then request a vote for expenditure of the funds as allocated. (See page 5 of the minutes.) June 17,1996 Page 4 Joint Legislative Committee on'School Safety New Applications Representative McLendon asked about the remaining $77,485, and was the Committee going to expand the number of schools in the Safe School Program and spend the money today. He also clarified that the remainder from FY 1995-96 had to revert. Representative d queries. He reminded the Committee that he had asked each group Smith d ~ r r n e both to come up with additional schools that were priority for violent or criminal incidents. He also noted that Peggy Eggemeyer had suggested listing the number of students attending each school, so that the number of incidents could be compared to the population of the school, and stated that he felt that was a good idea. Representative Smith asked Group 1 for the schools it felt had priority, and Ms. Rando replied she and Senator Chastain had determined Douglas Unified be funded as a new application for Douglas High School in the amount of $41,589 for a probation officer's salary and benefits, training for law related education, Teen Court, lesson and curriculum material, and a J.O.L.T.S. computer and dedicated phone line. Representative McLendon confirmed Douglas High School did not receive any Safe School funds at the present. Senator Chastain said they had considered the population of the school, the fact that it was an outlying high school, and the number of incidents. Representative Smith noted that there was an effort to fund middle schools in an endeavor to straighten out the problem children before they got to high school. Ms. Rando agreed with that, but noted that Douglas had a number of children already under court supervision and probation, had a law enforcement officer there who was not part of the funding requested, and would like to start the Teen Court. Ms. Eggemeyer reported for Group 2, saying she and Representative Smith had chosen Snowflake High School and Junior High School. The Snowflake schools had asked for Resource Officer (SRO). She $85,124 for a Juvenile Probation Officer (JPO) and a S1 noted her concern in looking at the incidences and how they were defined as far as need, and looking at the number of students at the school. She wanted to be sure each group was determining need in the same manner. Ms. Carter and Ms. Dulin noted Group 3 contained many poverty schools with a lot of need, but they had selected San Luis Middle School of the Gastin Elementary District, which was asking for $38,250 for one probation officer. Ms. Carter noted the school had a high California influence of gangs and gang related activies, as well as assault and vandalism. There are 2,250 students in the District and in the middle school the assault and agressive incidents were quite high. Representative McLendon stated he and Mr. Morrow had selected Camp Verde Middle School as Group 4's recommendation, which had a high rate of incidents, but were asking only $27,895 for one officer, including salary and benefits. Representative Smith noted he was familiar with the Camp Verde School area. One judge there had told him of a 12- Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety June 17,1996 Page 5 13 year old girl whom the judge had asked how long it would take to provide him with some amphetamines, and she had replied about 10 minutes. Representative Smith said it is a nice, small rural area, but the drugs are rampant. Approval Of Renewal Applications (Continued) Ms. Tafoya had returned at this point with the figures for Laveen and Window Rock, and Representative Smith asked her for the figures. She noted Laveen requested $80,200, which was a redudion in operating costs as they had an officer already in place. She said that Window Rock had requested $94,400, but last year had received $94,000. Representative Smith said to keep the allocation the same as last year at $94,000. Ms. Eggemeyer noted concern on voting on these budget requests at this point, and requested a few minutes for them to be read, since they had not been received by any of the Committee's groups. Ms. Tafoya distributed the budget requests from the respective schools to Ms. Dulin and Ms. Carter. When finished reading the requests, Ms. Carter stated they would approve the $80,200 funding for Laveen as it was a considerable reduction in expenditures. Ms. Dulin stated that Window Rock would be approved at the $94,000 Representative Smith had indicated. Ms. Hellen Carter made the motion that the Committee accept the budgets for the 1996-97 school year as proposed. Ms. Eggemeyer seconded the motion, and it was APPROVED by the Committee. Representative Smith redirected the Committee to discussion of new applications, noting the remainder of $77,885 in the original appropriation. His opinion was the middle schools were a higher priority, and the Committee should contact Snowflake and Douglas and advise them of the other programs available to them through the DOE and the Governor's office. Regarding priority schools previously discussed, he said if the San Luis and Camp Verde Middle Schools were chosen, that $66,145 would be used of that appropriation. When questioned by Senator Chastain, Representative Smith said the Committee could take the remaining $11,000 and use if for another school. Representative McLendon said that Group 4's second choice was Sahuarita Middle School which had requested $15,000. He suggested giving them the $11,000 based on the stipulation that it come up with the other $4,000 in funding. Senator Chastain noted Sahuarita had a high school program also. Representative Smith noted that would be the third middle school. Ms. Carter said another option was Joseph City Junior High School, which had asked $25,000, and she and Ms. Dulin could remove the request for San Luis Middle School allowing more funds on that Joseph City Junior High to be used elsewhere. Representative ~ c ~ e n d indicated School would possibly receive funds from another source. Ms. Carter then opted to keep San Luis Middle School as a recipient. Ms. Minore noted the correct remaining balance was $11,740. June 17,1996 Page 6 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Representative Smith concluded the Committee would allocate Camp Verde Middle School $27,895, San Luis Middle School $38,250, and the remaining $11,740 to Sahuarita Middle School. Representative McLendon is to contad them, and advise them these monies would be available if they obtained the remaining money (approximately $4,000) from other sources. Representative Mclendon, Ms. Eggemeyer and Representative Smith concurred that the funding should be based on that stipulation. Senator Chastain asked if the $15,000 was for a part-time officer, and Representative McLendon confirmed it was. Ms. Carter made a motion to accept the schools as indicated for funding for the Safe School Program for the 1996-97 school year, as previously stated, with a letter going to Sahuarita Middle School indicating that if they came up with the additional monies, $11,740 would be available to them, and if not, the money would remain in the Safe School Program fund. Ms. Eggemeyer seconded the motion, and it was APPROVED by the Committee. Representative Smith reiterated Snowflake JuniorISenior High School and Douglas High School would be contacted advising them of funds available from DOE, and also through the police department from the Governor's office. Representative Smith asked what amount was allocated to the 'high need" funds, and Ms. Dulin replied it was $1.4 million. Representative Smith suggested each group contact its second priority school and give them the same information, noting that his group's second choice was Mirana School. Senator Chastain said their second choice would be Avondale. Ms. Carter stated their second W i c e would be Joseph City Middle School. Representative McLendon noted that both Group 4 choices had been included in the motion to receive funds. Representative Smith noted that if these schools were successful in receiving money from the other two programs it would bring another eight schools into the Safe School Program. Future Plans Representative Smith said this was an important item, as since the Safe Schools Committee was organized responsibility had been fluctuating between the Committee and the DOE, which he felt confusing. He said that there were 69 or 70 funded schools now, with the possibility of adding eight. If more money was to be appropriated next year, perhaps another $5 million, whereby the Committee could bring a total of 150-200 schools into the program, there was need of a clear, concise system. Representative Smith thought the Committee should: (1) look at its time line to be sure it was accurate; and (2) look at the form that is sent to the schools for requesting application for funds. The size of the school should be included in that application. He noted the paperwork should be kept as general as possible, and in like manner, only incidents which led to violence or , on the school grounds, extreme activity should be considered. Defiance of a w ~ t yguns drug and alcohol incidents, fights and rebellion against faculty were serious incidents which should be considered. He wondered if the form should indicate types of incidents, Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety June 17,1996 Page 7 with space for others the school considered extreme. He thought the Committee should decide who (DOE or Legislative Staff) should handle all of this; who should do most of the paperwork; and what part the Committee should play in approval of funds to ascertain what schools are in the program. He felt the Committee should still play a part. Ms. Dulin said that as the DOE administered the federal Safe and Drug Free School Program it would be easy for it to assume the administrative responsibilities of the Safe Schools program, and the application could be incorporated into the federal application to reduce paperwork She said the DOE is doing evaluations of incidents, so it has a clear definition of incidents. It has monitored the Safe Schools this year in addition to monitoring the federal Safe and Drug Free Schools. Representative Smith asked when the DOE'S responsibility could become effective. Ms. Dulin replied the next school year. . Ms. Eggemeyer said she would like to propose setting up a subcommittee to work with DOE to set up guidelines for next year for reviewing applications, both old and new, and to review the application process again. Ms. Rando felt there had been good suggestions on how to consolidate and cut down on the administrative paperwork. She asked the Committee not to lose sight of the purpose of this program and let it get absorbed into some other federal program, because there are things unique to the Safe Schools Program, such as the Committee's reasons for including law related education and probation officers, that might not be the kinds of things looked at in others. She encouraged the Committee to keep some oversight and maintain the integrity of the program. Information should still be available to the Committee that showed the schools were following through with the plan they applied for, and evaluation components should reflect things unique to this program. Senator Chastain felt guidelines should be set up and all schools made aware of the program. He reflected on the differences in amounts allocated to schools in proportion to the student population of that school, and felt the Committee should maintain control over disbursement of funds. Ms. Eggemeyer noted that this was also part of her concern, saying that with all the different groups working on similar programs, it was hard to determine where the money was going even with the Committee allotting funds. She also noted that it was difficult to know what district a school was in, and the amount may reflect combined funds for a particular district. Senator Chastain stated there were greater needs in some areas of the State than others, and numbers of students did not necessarily reflect the true need. Representative McLendon added this was a gobd program with good support in the Legislature, and suggested the Committee introduce a bill next session which would provide an additional $5 million to the program. He also suggested it be kept separate and not be attached to any other bill, as he felt it would stand on its own merits. Representative McLendon also felt the Committee should develop a sunset review cycle June 17,1996 Page 8 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety for revaluating schools on a regular interval. He said it would be unfair for the schools funded today to establish a program, and next year have their funds eliminated because some other school may be portrayed to have greater need. Ms. Carter said her concern was that when the program was started it was to give some control to the local school districts based upon need, noting the need in Camp Verde may be a lot greater than the need in north Phoenix She felt the Committee had to realize that allowing for governmental regulation took away the independence of the district and its needs. One of the original Committee's fears was that, as Representative McLendon indicated, a year or two later another group could eliminate established funding to a school. She felt the Committee needed to look at where it had started and where it wanted to go before making further decisions. Representative Smith stated the Committee would follow Ms. Eggemeyer's recommendations and form a subcommittee. He would write up a charge together with Legislative staff members. He recommended the program remain independent as the Safe Schools Program, and not be incorporated into a government program, although he felt the forms could be combined. He agreed wholeheartedly that funded schools should remain on the program, and that there should be a bill of $5 million presented next session. He further agreed that there had to be some guidance. The subcommittee members were appointed as follows: Ms. Eggemeyer Ms. Dulin Ms. Carter Ms. Rando (added prior to end of meeting, see page 9) Representative Smith said the subcommittee will select its own chairperson, and he and the Legislative staff will present the charge of responsibilities and goals. Those responsibilities will be to review the: time line, forms that are used, evaluation process, and funding process. Representative Smith questioned when the Committee was to meet again, and Ms. Tafoya replied this was the last time the Committee had to meet as it had distributed the funds. It was decided the Committee would meet the end of July and review the subcommittee's recommendations, so they could be instituted by the time school started. Ms. Dulin noted the DOE should have reports and evaluations compiled by September. Ms. Eggemeyer questioned maintaining accountability of the schools on the program while the subcommittee was reviewing the evaluation process. She stated she understood funding had to be ongoing, but it should not be automatic; ongoing without accountability was to no one's advantage. Representative Smith replied when the evaluation was received if it was learned the school had acquired a JPO or SRO, but had an increase of June 17,1996 Page 9 Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety incidents, the school should be visited to ascertain the problem. If it appeared the program was not functioning properly, the school should be notified, given a year to correct the problem, and then funding withheld. He felt a school should be given adequate time to correct whatever problems it encountered. Ms. Carter said she and Stan Morrow could be of assistance if it were an SRO or JPO related incident, and work with the officer to become successful in the program. Ms. Dulin could help on the educational aspect. Representative McLendon said one has to be careful in determining accountability. He said it should be established whether the school was spending the money correctly, or on something that was not included in the program; and the subcommittee should also look at any drastic increase in incidents, even though an officer is present, to determine how the school could be better served by that officer. Representative Smith added that it should also be determined how much time the officer was spending on the school grounds. He felt personal contact should be made where problems were discovered, problems listed for the superintendent, and recommendations given to remedy the problems, followed up by a visit a year later to see if the situation had been rectified. Ms. Eggemeyer noted she was using the term accountability in very broad terms of both outcome and process, as being accountable for the total funds. Senator Chastain said that the monitoring process could be a full time job, and he did not believe a half day spent at a school would be enough to satisfy accountability. Students and staff should be included in evaluating a school. Representative Smith said he felt problems could be identified from the reports submitted by the schools. He noted that placing a probation or police officer on the school grounds was a good program, and he would like to see it remain simple and effective and not be lost in bureaucracy. Ms. Carter requested that Lynda Rando be added as a member of the subcommittee. Representative Smith agreed. He noted that a date would be determined and a notice sent out for the July meeting. Without objection, the meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, d r e n Neuberp Committee se&etary (Tapes on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate) d ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE Forty-second Legislature - Second Regular Session JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY Minutes of Interim Meeting Monday August 19, 1996 House Hearing Room 2 - 10:OO a.m (Tape 1, Side A) The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Cochairman Tom Smith and attendance was noted by the secretary. Members Present Hellen Carter, Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department Senator Robert Chastain Lynne Dulin, Child Nutrition Programs, Arizona Department of Education Peggy Eggemeyer, Director, Governor's Division for Chiidren Marianne Jennings, Professor of Legal and Ethical Studies, Arizona State University (ASU) College of Business Oficer Stan Morrow, City of Mesa Senator Patti Noland, Cochairman Representative Tom Smith, Cochairman Members Absent Representative Bob McLendon (excused) Speakers Present Victoria Tafoya, Education Analyst, Arizona State Senate Bonnie Barclay, Program Coordinator for Safe Schools, Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Debbie Mosbacher, Assistant Research Analyst, House of Representatives Cochairman Smith welcomed new member Marianne Jennings, Professor of Legal and Ethical Studies, Arizona State University (ASU) College of Business, and noted that one additional appointment to the Committee has yet to be made. He asked members to introduce themselves. He read the duties of the committee (see Attachment l), advised that legislative members serve in an advisory capacity only, and noted that a report is due by October 1, 1996. Mr. Smith emphasized that the Committee is charged with taking a proactive approach to preventing juvenile referrals to the JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY 811 9/96 court system, and he accented the importance of adhering to that goal. He briefly described the program since its inception in 1994 and noted that approximately seventy schools participate in the program, adding that it is his belief that the Safe Schools program is one of the best ever enacted by the Legislature. He said he believes much of the success of the program is based upon voluntary participation by police officers. Subcommittee Recommendations Ms. Carter distributed minutes of the August 7, 1996 School Safety Subcommittee meeting (Attachment 2) and reviewed sequentially the thirteen recommendations compiled by the Subcommittee (see Attachment 3). Following discussion of the need for an effective time line, Cochairman Smith asked Ms. Dulin and Victoria Tafoya, Education Analyst, Arizona State Senate, to make a recommendation to that effect. Ms. Dulin pointed out that established time lines already exist. In reference to recommendation #3, Mr. Smith asked if additional personnel will be needed to handle the central depository. Bonnie Barclay, Program Coordinator for Safe Schools, Arizona Department of Education (ADE), indicated her willingness to undertake the project. Mr. Smith asked that she keep in close contact with legislative staff Mr. Smith opined that it is neither possible nor desirable for each member to read every application, as provided for in recommendation #4. He added that he believes there should be only one contact person for each school. Ms. Carter pointed out that many committee members have asked to see the information contained on the applications. Ms. Eggemeyer said she believes it is important to have access to all applications in order to make an appropriate evaluation. She proposed that a standardized review form should be developed to help make the process more fair. Mr. Smith said while he has no objection to use of a standardized form, he has no desire to review every application. Ms. Eggemeyer reiterated the importance of clarifLing and standardizing procedures for two issues: a e Contacting schools Review of the proposals Ms. Jennings said while she believes it may be unrealistic to expect every member to review all the documentation, it would be possible to develop a form to provide general information, and another to include specific agreed-upon criteria. JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY 8119/96 Mr. Smith agreed that an improved standardized application form is needed. He emphasized that the program was designed to place police officers andlor probation officers on school grounds, and must not be allowed to become bogged down in bureaucracy. Senator Chastain concurred that basic information should be uniform, and observed that there have been discrepancies in the numbers of police officers in different schools. He added that it would be overwhelming to try to read every application in addition to bills introduced during the legislative session. Ms. Dulin proposed that applications should be streamlined in order to ensure that all interested schools have a fair chance based on a standardized review process. Mr. Smith said it is important to prioritize schools based on serious incidents, such as possession of weapons and assaults. He pointed out that those members who wish to review all the applications may do so. Ms. Carter concurred, and continued her review of the recommendations. Senator Chastain urged that schools should be notified prior to maiung a site visit. Senator Noland pointed out that some schools can be interviewed by telephone. Discussion followed on the proposal that the subcommittee meet at least quarterly (see recommendation #8). Debbie Mosbacher, Assistant Research Analyst, House of Representatives, pointed out that the Subcommittee has met three times in the last two months. Senator Noland cautioned against overstructuring the requirements, noting that the Subcommittee is free to meet as often as needed. She urged that the focus should be on getting all parties together in order to improve the program. Ms. Carter cautioned that substantial costs were incurred when all parties met at the Law-Related Education Conference. Mr. Smith proposed, and it was agreed, that the Subcommittee should meet on an "as necessary" basis. Continuing with a review of recommendation #9, Ms. Carter explained that the need for a payment schedule arose because not all monies have been handed over in a timely manner, compelling some counties to support schools. Discussion ensued on the reason for making two payments rather than one. Ms. Dulin noted that the first payment was made through the Department of Education in July 1996, the second payment being due in January 1997 Ms. Barclay reported that all but two schools have submitted amended budgets and received their first payment. She explained that the money is released by the County Superintendent's office. Referring to recommendation #lo, Senator Noland said she believes it is important to require compliance with set time lines, and that the next school on the priorities list should be fbnded if deadlines are missed. JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY 8119/96 Mr. Smith submitted that an apparent ambiguity contained on the second line of recommendation #10 could be modified by striking "in a timely manner." Ms. Carter indicated no opposition to the proposal. Ms. Barclay reported that information on the Safe Schools program was mailed to schools in February 1996, establishing a May 3rd deadline. She advised that ADE actively promotes the program at hnding workshops conducted throughout the state. Senator Noland proposed May 15 as the final deadline, adding that if no application is received by June 1 the funding should become available to the next school on the priority list. She added that deadlines should be included in the time line. Mr. Smith recommended that school board presidents should also receive a copy of the notification. (Tape 1, Side B) Senator Chastain concurred, noting that a major turnover in personnel may cause a delay. Ms. Carter pointed out that a majority of schools have followed through. She agreed on the importance of a firm deadline. In urging support for recommendation #11, Ms. Carter gave examples of inappropriate purchases made by some schools under the program. She emphasized that the money was intended to provide officers and the materials to support them. Mr. Smith concurred. Ms. Carter moved, seconded by Ms. Dulin, that the Committee accept the recommendations of the Subcommittee as discussed and/or amended. The motion carried. Ms. Barclay noted that April 30 is the current deadline, and requested clarification of the agreed-upon deadlines. Senator Noland said it is her intent to send a letter by May 15 and to terminate on June 1. She reiterated her belief that it would be beneficial for ADE, the Law-Related Education Division of the State Bar, Committee members and program participants to meet together to focus on the Safe Schools program and established deadlines. Ms. Carter announced that the Safe Schools program will be addressed at the following scheduled meetings: September 26. 1996 - 8:00 a.m. to 12 noon: "Nuts & Bolts Conference" at Metro Tech Auditorium for administrators and educators in Maricopa County, focusing on law-related education and safe schools. October 10. 1996 - Police and probation officers' conference at Durango Facility to discuss probation ideas and safe schools. JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL SAFETY 811 9/96 November 13. 1996 - 12:30 - 3 :30 p.m: Regional conference at Murphy District Office, focusing on working relations between schools, police and courts. November. 1996 (date to be determined). A probation conference to be held in the East Valley. Cochairman Smith thanked Ms. Carter and asked legislative staff to ensure that all members are apprised of the dates of the upcoming conferences. Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 1 1:20 a.m. - Carole Price, Committee Secretary (Original minutes with attachment 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 8119/96 APPENDIX C SUBCOMMITTEE MATERIAL HOUSE OF R E P M S E W A W S TO: Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety FROM: Representative Smith DATE: June 24,1996 SUBJECT: Subcommittee to the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety / / The following members of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety: Peggy Eggemeyer Hellen Carter Lynne Dulin Lynda Rando are appointed to a subcommittee, with Hellen Carter appointed as temporary chairperson until a permanent chairperson is elected by the subcommittee, to study and make recommendations to the full committee by July 19 on the following issues: 1) Recommendations of a program timeline. 2) Review and recommendations for improvement of the current application form. 3) Recommend the assignment of responsibilities for the administration of the program. 4) Recommend guidelines for approving funding. 5) Review the current evaluation process and make recommendations for improvements. 6) Other issues affecting the School Safety program. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 542-505 1 with any questions. RECOMMENDATIONS SAFE SCHOOLS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING July 9, 1996 Meet on a quarterly basis (full committee) Filter all questions through one central person (Bonnie Barclay) Review all applications not just some of them Ensure applicants meet deadlines and all the application components are submitted Utilize a log to track application status (ADE will do) Define role of Analyst Standardize the evaluation form (use CHAPPS) Replace members who don't attend Members of the committee need to be operating under the same rules to avoid miscommunication to the applicants REC-TION SAFE SCHOOLS SUBCOMMITPEE JULY 24, 1996 fxm A Safe Schools Subcommittee meeting was he1 which time ideas were discussed to Schools Program. The committee made felt to be in the best interest Funding. on July 24, 1996 at and direct the Safe endations that were Safe Schools Grant 1. Meet on a quarterly members/delegates). 2. Direct all questions Barclay, DOE). 3. Review all applications submitted Committee rather than only reviewing 4. Insure applicants meet all de dlines in all the application components when submit ing a request for continuous or new grant fundi Failure to meet deadlines are to result in the appli tfon being rejected- 5. Utilize a log to track the applicatio Schools Grant participant (ADE will d status of each Safe task). 6. Define the legislature. assigned 7. Standardize the evaluation form u ing portions of the CHAPPS Form but making the evaluati n form task specific to safe schools. 8. Replace members who fail to attend co 9. Designate an alternate to attend member cannot be present. role of basis ull ( committee, all through one c ntral person (Bonnie the the schools to the select few. I analyst I from the ittee meetings. mn if the committee 10. Members of the committee need to same rules to avoid miscommunication operating under the the applicants. 11. Establish the role of the PO/SRO Schools Program. the concept of Safe 12. Define what can or cannot be purchased by the school districts. Submit to the districts a letter outlining what is or is not acceptable. Recommendation Safe Schools Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 1996 13. Target area of concerns to schools fo:r appropriate use of funds if the school is having dif iculty running or maintaining their Safe Schools Prog am, a member of the committee can meet with a member of t'ne school to try and direct in an appropriate manner. 14. Schools are to pay the PO/SRO contr ct agency within 30 days of receiving funding. 15. Establish a mid-year evaluation process to determine if the schools are meeting their required goal and directives. 16. Develop site visits for the safe s hools participants. Committee members should visit at 1 ast two schools per semester to discuss with the scho , staff and youth whether the objectives are being fulfil ed. 17. Insure that the schools revert any un that fail to do so should have a reduced by the amount that was to have ent funds. Schools additional funding een reverted. 18. Establish two disbursement of enable the committee to reduce payment if the school had failed previous year. dates which would tions on the second money from the 19. Develop an evaluation to determine if the law related education component a to the Safe Schools Program and w ratio with students and the impact to type of encounter. school is meeting the impact of that is the one on one program with this 20. Evaluate the application process and d application need to be changed B) budget sheet that is well defined an each school is specifically spending as establishing a committee appxov would be submitted to the district a received and how they were allocated use. termine; A)does the omalize appropriate will enumerate what t's money on as well d budget sheet that to what monies they by the committee for The subcommittee has discovered that the ma participants are following the rules as ori the beginning of the Safe Schools Program some schools are failing to turn paperwork, are* everting previous year f comply with the necessary statistical inf whether or not the school program is bei being well spent. rity of Safe School nally designated at However, there are n all appropriate ding and failing to ation to determine ffective and money b f "T Recommendation Safe Schools Subcommittee Meeting July 24, 1996 The Safe Schools Program is no longer in had an opportunity to grow and develop accountability is now necessary. There i: if the goals and objectives of each scl whether the money is being well spent. W i t 1 requesting new funding it is necessary for to justify their use of funds and approprii through the funds. it's infancy and has to the point where a need to determine >ol is being met and a number of schools :he existing schools :eness of purchasing The following situations have come to the cc unittee's attention: PI bvious 1. Two schools have vehicles purchase and one leased. 2. Some schools have utilized their 1 ~nding for computers that were not approved by the committc !. 3. Some schools were found to be increas .ng their budget for a PO/SRO utilizing an experienced ~fficerwhile a less experienced less costly officer wc i put in the place allowing additional monies to be frc d for the school to use. from funding, one The committee believes that the fundin! f o r PO/SRO officers should meet the requirements of each d i s l :ict but monies must also be allocated for law related educatio~ materials, training and essential capital items such as abil: :y to connect to the JOLTS system for Probation Officers and r; lios for schools who have a large area to cover and could enhar :e the safety of the officers . The Safe Schools Subcommittee will meel to formalize and finalize certain recommendations to the full committee on 8-7-96 at 1l:OOarn in one of the Capital Building Cc ~ference rooms. I Safe Schools ~ g c o m m i t t e e School Safety Sub Committee Meeting August 7,1996 Minutes The committee reviewed the twenty recommendations that were generated at the July 24, 1996 meeting. The following changesladditions were made: Recommendation 3: Review all applications submitted by the schools to the committee rather than only reviewing a select few. Develop a standardized reviewform Recommendation 4: Insure applications meet all deadlines in all the application components when submitting a request for continuous or new grant funding. Failure to meet deadlines are to result in the application being rejected. Timelines will be provided to clarrjj due dafes. Representative Smith was concerned that time lines alone, were insufficient and requested thatfollow up phone calls be made. After much discussion, it was determined that written time lines and clear communication through ADE, by Bonnie Barclay would be the best approach. Recommendation 6: Define the role of the analysts assigned from the legislature. The analyst will assist with support duties i.e., xeroxing, mailings, etc. Recommendation 11: Establish the role of the POISRO within the concept of Safe Schools Program. It was recommended that language be introduced to change the current legislation to define the role of officers who are placed on campus. It was also recommended that o f f e r s be post certrfied in LRE. Recommendation 15: Establish a mid year evaluation process to determine if the schools are meeting their required goals and "directives." Change "directives" to objectives Recommendation 16: Develop site visits for the Safe Schools participants. Committee members should visit a t least two schools per semester to discuss with the school staff and youth whether the objectives are being fulfilled. Conduct site visitsfor the safe schools participants using a standardizedform. Bonnie Barclay will supply theform and coordinate the scheduling of reviews with all committee members. Recommendation 17: Insure that the schools revert any unspent funds. Schools that fail to do so should have any additional funding reduced by the amount that was to have been reverted. Legislation will be introduced to clarzj.) that unspentfinds must be returned to the Safe Schools Committeefor reallocation. Recommendation 19: Develop an evaluation to determine: (A) if the school is meeting the law related education components; (B) the impact of that to the Safe Schools Program; (C) the one on one ratio with students; and (D) the impact to the program with this type of encounter. PO'S and SRO 's need clearer instructions on the definition o f : number of students they are serving and impact. Additional discussion topics: (1) Bonnie Barclay provided a updated list of which districts had not submitted their completion reports. (2) Questions were raised regarding officers time during the summer months. Some officers returned to their station. (3) Helen Carter was elected permanent chairperson of the sub committee. Lynne Dulin will be responsible for the minutes. (4) Representative Smith reminded us of the 6 original charges of the committee. The full committee will meet on Monday, August 19, 1996. DATE: August 18,1996 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Hellen Carter, Subcommittee Chairperson SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety should: 1. Initiate the application process to the schools in a timely manner. 2. Allow for a time line to be mailed to each of the recipient schools telling them what the dates will be for the entire application and evaluation process. This would allow the school to set their pace to have the necessary paper work to the committee in a timely manner. 3. Have one central depository of material that could then be disseminated to the various committee members. Bonnie Barclay of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) was recommended as the central depository and contact person who could then refer the school to the appropriate committee member as needed. 4. When applications are received, allow each committee member to have copies of ALL of the applications to better determine and evaluate between all programs and not only a selected few. 5. Develop a check list when evaluating the various grant requests to allow for some consistency in the determination process. 6. Encourage each committee member to make at least two site visits during the year to grant recipients not being interviewed by the ADE to determine the atmosphere of the school and whether they are utilizing the grant effectively. 7. Develop a simple yet concise evaluation tool in conjunction with the ADE to determine if the school receiving grant money is fulfilling the obligations it agreed to in the grant application and to determine if the School Safety Program is effective as a whole. 8. Continue the subcommittee and have it meet at least quarterly to discuss issues that might arise concerning school and their program or discuss ways to better serve the various grant recipients. 9. Pay the schools in two payments with payment made to the appropriate legal entity within 30 days after receiving payment from ADE. 10. Require school to submit their applications and evaluation to the ADE in a timely manner as set forth in the time line developed. If they fail to do so, a contact will be made with both the superintendent and principal of the school. If the necessary material is not submitted after efforts by the committee have been made, it could result in the school losing its School Safety Program funding. 11. Provide a list of appropriate and inappropriate funding items to each school so they are aware of what they can and cannot purchase with any additional grant money that they may have remaining. 12. Have one central contact person designated by the receiving school so that person can be contacted if the committee has any questions. A principal, grant writer, P.O., S.R.O., etc. are examples of appropriate contact persons. 13. Have each school made aware Law Related Education (LRE) is a mandatory part of the grant. DARE and GREAT are not LRE! The School Safety Program is a viable program and has been accepted by the schools as part of their programs to make the educational environment a better place for the students. However, there must be a process to determine if the schools are effectively utilizing their funding in a proper manner and whether the funding should be granted to a school which could better benefit from the funding. DATE: August 19,1996 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety Hellen Carter, Subcommittee Chairperson REVISED SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been revised to reflect the discussion of the committee on August 19,1996. The Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety should: 1. Initiate the application process to the schools in a timely manner. The appIication process should take place during the school year. 2. Allow for a time line to be mailed to each of the recipient schools telling them what the dates will be for the entire application and evaluation process. This would allow the school to set their pace to have the necessary paper work to the committee in a timely manner. 3. Have one central depository of material that could then be disseminated to the various committee members. Ms. Bonnie Barclay of the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) was recommended as the central depository and contact person who could then refer the school to the appropriate committee member as needed. 4. Allow each committee member, upon request, to have copies ofALL of the applications to better determine and evaluate between all programs and not a selected few. 5. Develop a check list when evaluating the various grant requests to allow for some consistency in the determination process. 6. Encourage each committee member to make at least two site visits during the year to grant recipients not being interviewed by the ADE to determine the atmosphere of the school and whether they are utilizing the grant effectively. 7. Develop a simple yet concise evaluation tool in conjunction with the ADE to determine if the school receiving grant money is fulfilling the obligations it agreed to on the grant application and to determine if the School Safety Program is effective as a whole. 8. Continue the subcommittee and have it meet as necessary to discuss issues that might arise concerning the participants and their programs or discuss ways to better serve the various grant recipients. 9. Require the recipients to pay the appropriate legal entity within 30 days after receiving payment from ADE. 10. Require applicants to submit their applications and evaluations to the ADE as set forth in the time line developed. If they fail to do so, a contact will be made with both the superintendent and principal of the school. If the necessary material is not submitted after efforts by the committee have been made, it could result in the school losing its School Safety Program funding. 1 1. Provide a list of appropriate and inappropriate funding items to each recipient so they are aware of what they can and cannot purchase with any additional grant money that they may have remaining. 12. Have one central contact person designated by each recipient so that person can be contacted if the committee has any questions. Principals, grant writers, a PO, a SRO, etc. are examples of appropriate contact persons. 13. Have each recipient made aware that Law Related Education (LRE) is a mandatory part of the grant. The recipients should also know that DARE and GREAT are not LRE! Italics indicate recommendations that were revised following the Joint Legislative Committee on School Safety meeting on August 19, 1996. APPENDIX D FUNDING ALLOCATION SCHOOL SAFETY PROGRAM FY 1996-1997 APPROVED BUDGETS # SCHOOLS 1995-1996 BUDGET REQUESTED BUDGET APPROVED BUDGET 1. Casa Grande Union High School $49,2 18 $49,2 18 $49,2 18 2. Osborn Middle School $45,180 $42,290 $42,290 3. Creighton Elementary $90,500 $98,125 $90,500 4. Crane Elementary $96,550 $108,184 $96,550 5. Mesa Unified $389,000 $523,000 $389,000 6. Murphy $78,560 $197,445 $78,560 7. Mingus Union High School $90,500 $96,600 $90,500 8. Sahuarita High School $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 9. Wellton Elementary School $86,000 $86,000 $82,000 10. Cartwright $247,800 $226,638 $2 16,800 12. Somerton Middle School $54,007 $50,338 $50,338 14. Alhambra Elementary District $79,700 $121,200 $79,700 15. Woodard Junior High $104,000 $101,100 $101,100 16. Dysart Unified $90,000 $107,350 $90,000 18. Canyon Del Oro High School $75,500 $143,650 $75,500 19. Thatcher Unified $29,660 $27,000 $27,000 20. Gila County Safe Schools Consortium $137,698 $144,583 $137,698 2 1. East Valley Institute of Technology $8 1,400 $85,000 $8 1,400 22. Buena High School $37,200 $75,029 $37,200 23. Safford Unified $32,800 $34,440 $32,800 24. Pinal County $36,500 $30,320 $30,320 25. Benson Public Schools $65,375 $65,357 $65,375 26. Yuma Union High School $55,825 $57,912 $54,000 27. Santa Cruz Valley Union H.S. $29,270 $3 1,002 $29,000 # SCHOOLS BUDGET REQUESTED BUDGET APPROVED BUDGET 28. Prescott Unified $38,955 $42,711 $38,955 29. Balsz $122,800 $176,800 $122,800 3 1. Phoenix Union High School $1 16,571 $1 18,500 $1 16,571 32. Payson Unified $77,078 $83,965 $77,078 33. Villa de Paz Elementary $44,075 $47,250 $44,075 34. Washington Elementary $40,857 $45,500 $40,857 35. Marana Unified $126,706 $92,832 $126,706 36. Laveen $96,000 $80,200 $80,200 37. Sunnyside Unified $74,000 $78,922 $74,000 38. Window Rock Unified $94,000 $94,400 $94,000 39. Colorado River Union High School $56,700 $65,000 $56,700 40. Gilbert High School $44,500 $44,500 $44,500 41. Kingman Elementary $70,762 $73,500 $70,762 42. Flowing Wells District $79,246 $89,4 15 $79,246 43. Pueblo Middle School $39,800 $44,705 $39,800 44. Coolidge Unified $34,111 $201,826 $34,111 45. Wilson Elementary $43,730 $40,000 $40,000 46. Round Valley Middle School $71,874 $1 11,307 $71,874 47. Casa Grande Elementary $36,494 $39,602 $36,494 48. Alchesay High School $65,000 $1 16,917 $65,000 49. Florence Unified $33,361 $107,825 $33,361 50. Bullhead City Schools $37,330 $40,681 $37,330 51. North Canyon High School $38,206 $38,206 $38,206 53. Phoenix Elementary $204,000 $3 11,000 $204,000 54. Apache Junction Unified $116,186 $184,787 $1 16,186 57. Williams Unified $27,500 $60,000 $27,500 BUDGET REQUESTED BUDGET # SCHOOLS 113. Sunnyside Unified (2) $128,040 114. Joseph City Junior High $25,000 115. San Luis Middle School $38,250 116. Chino Valley Unified (3) $25,086 117. Sanders Middle School $8 1,670 118. Excel Education Centers, Inc. (3) $40,946 119. Clarendon Middle School $42,845 120. Agua Fria Union High School $40,007 121. Washington Elementary District (4) $105,281 122. Alhambra Elementary District (4) $162,200 123. Sahuarita Middle School $15,000 124. Thomydale Elementary School $46,105 125. Camp Verde Middle School $27,895 126. Tuba City High School $75,25 1 127. Holbrook Junior High School $34,500 128. Holbrook High School $34,500 129. Bullhead City Junior High School $43,166 APPROVED BUDGET $38,250 $1 1,7403 $27,895 - SUBTOTAL4 NIA $3,703,903 $77,885 TOTAL $4,998,930 $10,123,153 $5,000,000 June 17. 1996 This grant in contingent upon the district obtaining hnding for the balance of the grant, which is $3,260. This is the subtotal for applicants that have not been funded previously. - # SCHOOLS BUDGET REQUESTED BUDGET APPROVED BUDGET 58. Sacaton Middle School $45,000 $62,080 $45,000 59. Chloride $25,500 $26,500 $25,500 60. Tucson Unified $336,970 $405,9 10 $336,970 61. Desert Arroyo Middle School $3 1,000 $42,750 $3 1,000 62. Bisbee High School $46,450 $78,250 $46,450 63. Sierra Middle School $36,383 $43,487 $36,383 64. Littleton Elementary $44,000 $58,500 $44,000 65. Longview Elementary $44,830 $43,139 $43,139 69. Show Low Middle SchoolIHigh School $80,200 $136,914 $80,200 70. Sacaton Elementary $45,000 $62,080 $45,000 72. ClarkdaleIJerome $3 1,000 $35,500 $3 1,000 73. Isaac Middle School $129,596 $273,25 1 $129,596 78. San Manuel HightGardner $36,442 $59,252 $36,442 80. Marana Plus $40,774 $45,105 $40,774 83. Granada East Elementary $39,700 $40,400 $39,500 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $4,998,930 $6,419,250 $4,922,115 87 - Mountain Pointe High School - SUBTOTAL' 30. Page High School $57,691 66. Snowflake Jr./Sr. High $85,124 67. Blue Ridge School District $89,528 74. Lake Havasu Unified $78,500 77. Wilcox Middle School $33,526 86. Kingman High School $102,204 89. Douglas High School $41,589 This is the subtotal for current participants. BUDGET REQUESTED BUDGET # SCHOOLS 90. Avondale Elementary District $55,180 91. Madison Park Elementary $43,050 92. MCOB Accommodation School $48,5 14 93. Mountain Vista ElemenataryIJr. High $34,300 94. Desert Vista High School $44,000 95. Teen Choice Leadership Academy $543 14 96. Vista Verde Middle School $38,206 97. Tucson Unifed (9)2 $536,3 13 98. SedonaIOak Creek Unified $54,789 99. Tombstone Unified (2) $62,500 100. Maricopa County Regional Schools (2) $36.62 1 101. Maricopa Unified School District (2) $98,298 102. Tolleson Elementary District $18,63 1 103. Eloy Junior High School $79,543 104. Pendergast Elementary $42,900 105. Litchfield Elementary APPROVED BUDGET $43,507 - 106. Marana High School $45,106 107. Centennial Middle School $42,783 108. Phoenix Union High School District (6) $237,000 109. Whiteriver Middle School $100,450 110. Amphitheater Public Schools (4) $333,994 111. Santa Maria Middle School $88,000 112. Pinon Unified (2) $1 11,800 The number in parenthesis indicates the number of schools in each district that submitted an application.