A Report on Crime and Violence in California's Public School System

Crime Arson Burglary Theft- Students Theft- School Vandalism Totals Source: -15- TABLE 5 COMPARISON OF PROPERTY CRIMES 1 REPORTED BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985-86 AND 1986-87 Total Crimes Offenders (When Identified) No. of Incidents Student Non-Student Percent 1985-86 1986-87 Chan~e 1985-86 1986-87 1985-86 1986-87 1985-86 1,275 1,125 -150 568 549 287 239 66.4 10,213 8,378 -1,835 3,413 1,419 3,358 2,734 50.4 17,411 16,566 -845 12,182 12,028 878 961 93.3 8,778 8,031 -747 3,854 3,074 1,928 1,939 66.7 37,023 37,251 228 6,860 7,629 6,080 8,781 53.0 74,700 71 ,351 -3,349 26,877 24,699 12,531 14,654 68.2 -- "A Report to the California State Legislature Regarding the Standard SchGol Crime Reporting Program," Department Education, June, 1987 and April, 1988 Student 1986-87 69.7 34.2 92.6 61.3 46.5 62.8 of 1. Definitions for each of the property crimes categories are contained in the appendix of this report. As shown in Table 5, school districts reported to the DOE a total of 74,000 school property crimes for fiscal year 1985-86 and over 71,000 property crimes for fiscal year 1986-87. In each of the fiscal years, vandalism was reported as having the highest number of incidence and theft from students had the second highest. Columns under the "Offenders" heading in Table 5 reflect the number of incidents in which the school districts identified suspects for the property crimes. For this reason, the totals under this heading are less than the totals under the "Total Crimes" heading. Of the total number of property crimes for which the district identified suspects in fiscal year 1986-87, the districts identified students as suspects in 62.8 percent of the incidents. For fiscal year 1985-86, the districts identified students as suspects in 68.2 percent of the incidents. Finally, consistent with the analysis of other statistics from the DOE's report on school crime, the Commission notes that there are questions regarding the accuracy of the figures reported by districts. The accuracy of the report will be discussed in the second finding of this section. Schools Reflect Their Communities There are many causes for the crime and violence that occurs on today's -16- school campuses; a discussion of some of these causes should begin with the communities in which the schools exist. The heart of a school's community is a student's home. Unfortunately, the home sometimes is also the heart of problems that cause a student to behave violently and commit crimes. For example, children that are exposed to violence at home, whether as a victim or a witness, sometimes imitate the violent behavior outside the home. The report "School Bullying and Victimization," published by the National School Safety Center, states that "as with alcoholism and other forms of abusive behavior, evidence strongly suggests that bullying tends to be an intergenerational problem. Many childhood bullies, in fact, are often abused by one parent at home and (may) witness that parent abuse his spouse and the child's siblings." Another report, "Delinquency Patterns in Maltreated Children and Siblings," by Bolton, Reich and Guitierras indicated that maltreated youth may become delinquents or, more often, may become dropouts or runaways; whereas their siblings who were not maltreated, but who observed the violence, engaged in victimizing others because they assume that it is acceptable behavior. In a June, 1988 report, the California Commission on Educational Quality's technical advisory committee on safety stated that "the youth frequently sets himself or herself up for disaster because the youth has learned to control the environment through the same behavior that may have precipitated the abuse years ago. This is the familiar world the youth knows; and no matter how unpleasant, it is predictable." Intergenerational delinquency, which occurs when a delinquent youth follows in the footsU!ps of delinquent parents or other older family members, appears to be another cause of crime and violence in schools. In a draft report that outlined factors that could be used by the California Youthful Offender Parole Board in identifying youths who were at risk of behaving violently and/or returning to crime, the California Youth Authority indicated that youths who had parents with criminal records were at risk. Other studies, such as the report to the California Commission on Educational Quality, suggest that violence may be learned and "with some families, violence is actually encouraged, supported and expected. Generational gang affiliation, drug and alcohol addiction, and criminal behavior are commonplace in high crime areas and are part of the profile of serious delinquent youth." Apathetic parents are almost as damaging as parents who encourage their children to engage in crime and violence. By not monitoring children's activities, including school, parents can imply that they do not care about the children's well-being and further imply consent of the children IS negative behavior. For example, an undated paper written by George J. McKenna, a former principal who is credited with turning Los Angeles I George Washington Preparatory High School from one of the city's worst institutions into a model school, stated that "parents or guardians of gang members either do not know, pretend not to know, do not care, or feel powerless to do anything about the gang-related activities of their children." In addition, by not becoming involved in their children's schooling, parents do not share in their children's achievements and do not offer incentive for the children to continue succeeding. '- -17- The community at large also is responsible for causing students to commit crimes and behave violently. Mr. McKenna maintains that gangs do not exist as a natural outgrowth of poverty, but rather '~ecause factors within our society allow young people to feel hopeless and helpless, and become disenfranchised from a system that offers no guarantee of a quality education or economic security." In its report "Gangs in Schools Breaking Up is Hard to Do," the National School Safety Center states that "schools may safely assume that violent and anti-social gang behavior usually suggest psychological, emotional, attitudinal and cultural assimilation problems, a weak family structure, or a combination thereof. Additionally, gang members are likely to remain gang members because of fear, poor self-esteem and a genuine inability to understand or cooperate with others outside their group." In addition, an article in the New York Times dated April 29, 1987, suggests that crime "appears to be feeding on itself and that adolescents, who are in the most violence-prone years, are more likely to connnit crimes." The article also quotes Robert Herrnstein, a professor of psychology at Harvard University and co-author of the book "Crime and Human Nature," as saying, "Seeing other people break the law is disinhibiting. Teenagers, whose moral development lags behind their physical and psychological maturity, are vulnerable." Sometimes, violence on school campuses is the result of violence in the connnunity spilling over to the schools. These incidents are often random and are difficult to prevent. Sometimes, community violence and its effect on schools are simply too unpredictable to prepare for. One such incident occurred in February, 1984 when a sniper attacked an elementary school in the South-Central district of Los Angeles while children were playing in the school playground. Although they are unpredictable, these incidents are examples of how connnunity violence is one of the causes of crime in schools. Ineffective Administration at Schools Examples of effective administration, such as that exhibited by George J. McKenna in Los Angeles' George Washington Preparatory High School, are evidence that problems of crime and violence on school campuses can be overcome. However, in schools where the administration is weak, problems will continue to exist. The fact that a large amount of crime and violence does exist on California school campuses implies that poor administration must account for at least a small part of the problems. Apparently, some administrators don't care about the problems. For example, an administrator in the central office of a school district in San Diego stated that he was aware of some principals who, by their nature, are antagonistic toward students and thereby cause some problems on campus. Other principals, he claimed, have good intentions but simply do not know how to address some of the problems that they face on campus. This claim is supported by a study performed by Harvard University's Graduate School of Education researchers and published in the Harvard Education Letter for September, 1987. The study indicated that administrators at two urban California schools. that were plagued by poor attendance had tried every remedy from campus supervision by plainclothes police to after-school detention, independent study, and summer camp; the school realized little improvement. The researchers found that the administrators failed to -20- Students Cannot Learn, Teachers Cannot Teach The effects of school crime and violence are many; some are readily apparent, some are hidden only to surface at a later time. The immediate effects of violence on student and staff victims are seen in the physical injuries sustained by the students and staff. However, as tragic and longlasting as those effects are, they are not the only ones suffered by victims of violence. Moreover, those students and staff physically injured by crime and violence are not the only victims. When crime and violence exist in schools, students and staff are denied their inalienable right to a safe environment. In addition, students and staff are denied an atmosphere that is conducive to education. Students cannot learn and teachers cannot teach when they live in fear of physical violence. The recent report to the California Commission on Educational Quality, prepared by its technical advisory committee on school safety, concluded that students' and staff's abilities to learn and teach are directly affected by their emotional and physical injuries and their fears. A study by the federal "Working Group on School Violence and Discipline" indicated that "an orderly school environment was essential to learning; that disorder in some American schools was significant enough to pose obstacles to positive educational experiences; and that no amount of money, teacher salary raises or improved facilities, materials or curricula will encourage students to learn if they are distracted or fearful." The emotional effects of being victimized vary, of course, among individuals. However, several studies have identified some of the effects that are common to victims. For example, in their report, "Special Intervention Programs for Child Witnesses to Violence," Dr. Robert S. Pynoos and Dr. Spencer Eth state that "children who witness acts of violence represent a population at significant risk of developing anxiety, depressive, phobic, conduct, and post-traumatic stress disorders." The study furthet suggests that school-age children can suffer adverse effects in school performance and learning and "are more likely to react to traumatic violence with aggressive or inhibited behavior and with psychosomatic complaints. Adolescents may embark upon a period of post-traumatic acting-out behavior expressed by school truancy, precocious sexual activity, substance abuse and delinquency." Also, recent findings indicate that these psychological consequences for traumatized children can last for years. The "Report to the California Commission on Educational Quality" references Dr. Alfred Bloch, assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles. After examining more than 1,000 teachers, many of whom describe their teaching environment as the "combat zone" and who described symptoms of fatigue, headaches, gastrointestinal problems, cardiovascular problems, and hypertension, Dr. Bloch stated, "What we are seeing is very much akin to the kind of stress that soldiers in World War II and the Korean War had experienced." In his 1978 report, "Combat Neurosis in Inner-City Schools," Dr. Bloch indicated that threats of a brutal attack were often more psychologically disabling than the actual event. He further stated that "the teachers felt especially demoralized when, in attempting to report an attack, they found the principal to be indifferent or, worse, fault-finding. The teachers said -21- that they were usually discouraged from reporting incidents of violence. Although legally required to do so, they received the implicit (and sometimes explicit) message that it was not in their best interest to pursue the matter, i.e., that the administrators might consider them unsuccessful." In this situation, teachers are faced with a threat to their job security and the real or perceived dangers of violence in the classroom. The Superintendent of Public Instruction has not exercised the leadership necessary to encourage full and adequate crime reporting. Financial Costs of School Crime and Violence In addition to the physical and psychological toll taken by crime and violence in schools, there are also adverse financial "effects. First, there are the immediate costs of repairing or replacing school property that is damaged, destroyed, or stolen. Second, there is a cost that results from the efforts of schools and federal, state, and local governments to prevent or follow up on school crime and violence. Finally, there are insurance costs, legal counsel costs, and potential damages associated with schools' liability to provide a safe environment for students and staff. Property crimes on school campuses have the most visible financial costs. In both its first and second "Report to the California State Legislature Regarding the Standard School Crime Reporting Program," the DOE provides the estimated dollar losses for property crimes reported by school districts for fiscal years 1985-86 and 1986-87. Table 6 shows those figures. Arson Burglary Theft - Theft - TABLE 6 ESTIMATED DOLLAR LOSSES FOR PROPERTY CRIMES REPORTED BY SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1985-86 AND 1986-87 Number of Incidents Estimated Dollar Loss 1985-86 1986-87 1985-86 1986-87 1,275 1,125 $11,703,203 $11 ,512,604 10,213 8,378 2,332,509 2,497,550 Students 17,411 16,566 * * School 8,778 8,031 1,574,399 1,655,560 Change -$190,599 165,041 81,161 Vandalism 37,023 37,251 7,727,917 7,212,826 -515,09l Totals 74,700 71,351 $23,338,028 $22,878,540 -$459,488 * The DOE reports that reliable dollar value estimates are unavailable because these are losses reported by individuals. Source: "A Report to the California State Legislature Regarding the Standard School Crime Reporting Program," Department Education, June, 1987 and April, 1988 of -- -22- As Table 6 shows, 74,700 property crimes during fiscal year 1985-86 cost over $23 million to repair or replace school property. In fiscal year 1986-87,71,351 property crimes cost almost $23 million. Neither of the cost figures include the amount of loss suffered by individual students because the DOE does not report the figures. The DOE claims that "because these are losses from individuals, reliable estimates as to value are unavailable." Also noted in Table 6, arson accounted for the fewest number of property crime incidents but the largest dollar loss in both fiscal years. Vandalism accounted for the second largest dollar loss in both years. Another financial cost of school crime and violence is the expense that schools and federal, state, and local governments incur for their efforts to prevent or follow up on school crime and violence. For example, in addition to the over $14 million in state and federal funds that the Department of Education spends to reduce school crime, the California Attorney General's Office funds programs, events, and publications related to alcohol and drug abuse prevention, child abuse prevention, and other school safety issues. Further, the State incurs costs when the perpetrators of school crime and violence enter the State's penal system. Similarly, local governments incur costs related to school crime and violence when problems that occur on school campuses require local law enforcement agencies to become involved. Finally, the schools themselves spend money to curb crime and violence on their campuses. Most school districts operate and maintain school police departments or other security staff. For example, the Los Angeles Unified School District spends over $18 million a year for police and campus supervision services. The Department of Education estimates that, in total, school districts spend hundreds of millions of dollars to provide safe school campuses. A third area of financial costs is associated with the schools' liability for providing safe environments for students and staff. Court cases related to school safety are continually being decided, and in numerous decisions the liability of schools is being determined. The safe schools provision in the constitution and the decision rendered in Hosemann v. Oakland Unified School District may add new liabilities to the existing legal protections and precedents for assisting injured students and staff. Not all experts agree with this opinion, however. In his article, "The 'Safe Schools Provision': Can a Nebulous Constitutional Right Be A Vehicle For Change?," lawyer Stuart Biegel, from the UCLA Graduate School of Education, presents five alternative positions regarding the interpretation of Section 28(c) of Article I of the California Constitution: 1. It is simply a restatement of previous law because what it says is neither new nor different; 2. It is not self-executing and, therefore, represents an invitation to the Legislature to come up with a statutory scheme for implementing the provision; 3. It maximizes school safety by making it easier to prosecute those who commit crimes on school grounds; -23- 4. It provides for additional duties and/or remedies under existing tort law doctrines; and 5. It mandates an affirmative duty to make schools safe regardless of cost. In a letter to members of the School Safety Partnership, the DOE lawyers indicated that if the theory of schools' liability as presented in the Hosemann decision is validated, the public school system in California could be bankrupted or resources would have to be "radically reallocated away from the educational process." This statement represents the low priority placed on school safety by the DOE. Regardless of the final outcome of the Hosemann decision, schools already are experiencing the costs of legal liability through the rising costs of insurance and legal counsel. To mitigate the high cost of insurance, many school districts, particularly the smaller ones, have formed "joint power authorities" to insure themselves. The joint power authorities allow the districts to insure themselves for claims up to a certain amount, $100,000 for example. Above that amount, the school districts must purchase insurance from insurance companies for claims ranging up to $1 million. Above $1 million, school districts can become part of a statewide "excess liability pool." This "pool" is a means by which districts can combine their resources to provide coverage for extremely large losses. In addition to claims, legal fees are assumed by the joint power authorities for claims that are under the self-insured "ceiling." The director of risk management for a joint power authority that was formed by some of the school districts in San Diego County stated that "it is difficult to identify the exact costs associated with school safety, but the losses resulting from claims and the costs of legal counsel have, without question, risen as a result of increased crime and violence in schools." As an example, the total dollar amount of losses resulting from claims for the San Diego joint power authority increased almost 210 percent from $538,460 in fiscal year 1981-82 to $1,668,146 in fiscal year 1986-87. According to the director of risk management, part of the increase is because of losses resulting from claims related to school crime and violence. Of the claims contributing to the total losses, only the claims for students injured in fights are distinguished by the joint power authority and are clearly related to school violence. The losses for these claims increased almost 1,800 percent from $7,255 in fiscal year 1984-85, the earliest year for which information is available, to $137,146 in fiscal year 1986-87. Another example of the escalating cost of losses for claims related to school crime and violence comes from Industrial Indemnity, one of the largest underwriters for school districts in California. The insurance company had arson claims totalling about $10 million for the five-year period between 1980 and 1985. In 1986 and 1987, arson claims totalled approximately $12 million and $15 million, respectively. In addition, the custom programs manager for Industrial Indemnity stated that legal costs have escalated because of an increase in the number of claims related to school crime and violence. -' -24- It is difficult to determine the total financial costs of school crime and violence, just as it is impossible to accurately measure the learning that does not occur and the amount of suffering that results from crime and violence in schools. It is clear, however, that despite a constitutional right to safe schools, life on school campuses includes violent crimes, substance abuse, and property crimes. These circumstances exist, in part, because schools reflect their communities, some schools are ineffectively administered, and the State has not provided the leadership necessary to ensure the safety of children attending California's schools. -25- Finding 112 School Crime Reports Do Not Accurately Describe the Extent of Crime and Violence in Schools State law requires that school districts report to the Department of Education (DOE) statistics on crime committed at schools. In response to the law, the DOE established the School Crime Reporting Program. However, the reports submitted by school districts under the program are inaccurate because of the districts' inconsistent interpretations of the DOE's instructions, the differences in the districts' data collection techniques, the districts' fear of adverse publicity resulting from reports that show a high incidence of crime, and the DOE's inability to properly enforce the reporting requirements. Without accurate information on school crime, neither state and local governments nor schools and school districts can clearly identify problem areas and develop or revise strategies to address crime. If not addressed properly, the problems of school crime and violence will persist. School Crime Reporting Requirements In 1984, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2483 (Stirling) which became Penal Code Section 628 (Chapter 1607, Statutes of 1984). The legislation has four main requirements: 1. Schools and school districts must report incidents of crime committed on school campuses or at school-related events to the DOE on a semi-annual basis; 2. The DOE must compile the data submitted by districts on a county-by-county and statewide basis each year and report both the current and previous year's information to the Legislature; 3. Beginning with the second year, the DOE must evaluate the crime prevention programs in the school districts by comparing the numbers and rates of crimes and resulting economic losses for each year against the previous years; and 4. The DOE must, upon request, supply to the county superintendents of schools and each county probation department a summary of that county's district reports and the statewide aggregate data. The theory behind the legislation is that effective reporting techniques that measure and assess schools' and school districts' particular crime problems can lead to the development of successful programs to combat campus crime. The accuracy of the crime statistics reported is important for several reasons, including: Standard reporting procedures allow districts to analyze crime problems on their schools' campuses and to direct appropriate resources to schools to eliminate the incidence of school crime; When accurate information on school crime is available, county, and local government agencies can develop or intervention and prevention strategies; state, revise -- -26- If some schools underreport their incidence of school crime and other schools overreport, unfair or inaccurate comparisons are made among schools or districts; The Legislature needs complete and accurate information on school crime to enact legislation to assist schools and communities in developing strategies for reducing the incidence of school crime; and When school crime occurs, its incidence is public information. If the public is to support and assist schools in implementing school safety activities, the information presented must be accurate and credible. In response to Penal Code Section 628, the DOE established the School Crime Reporting Program. The program, which is administered through the School Climate Unit in the DOE's Instructional Support Services Division, was designed to help personnel in schools and school districts gather school crime data on a systematic basis beginning July I, 1985. The program now provides comparative data for fiscal years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The data reported by schools and school districts is done so on the Standard School Crime Reporting Form, which contains instructions for completing the form and definitions of the crime classifications that are identified on the form. To introduce the reporting form and its instructions and to discuss reporting procedures with school district personnel, the DOE conducted 25 workshops throughout the State in May and June, 1985. Each participant received forms, reporting instructions, and training during a two-hour session. In addition, the DOE mailed sample sets of the form and reporting instructions to all districts in June, 1985. In July and August, 1985, the DOE distributed to the districts a sufficient number of reporting forms for all schools' within the districts. Further, the DOE conducted six additional regional workshops in December, 1985, to accommodate district personnel or school level representatives who were able to attend the previous workshops. In 1986, the DOE presented six more workshops. In total, representatives from between 25 to 30 percent of California school districts attended the 37 workshops. To assist educational personnel in learning what school crimes to report and how to report the crimes, Penal Code Section 626.1 (Chapter 300, Statutes of 1984) was enacted. The legislation required the Office of the Attorney General to prepare and present to the Superintendent of Public Instruction a report that contains a summary of California penal and civil laws pertaining to crimes committed against persons or property on school grounds. In response to this legislation, the Attorney General, in cooperation with the DOE, published and distributed the "School Crime Handbook" in 1986. The handbook also provides detailed definitions of the various crimes that are required on the school crime report. Also in 1986, the- DOE sent to all school districts a separate manual of instructions for completing the Standard School Crime Reporting Forms. Unlike the instructions contained on the reporting form itself, the manual provides some examples for reporting crimes and provides suggestions to -27- districts for collecting and reporting the crime data effectively and efficiently. Reports Are Inconsistent Despite the efforts of the DOE and the Attorney General's Office. the school crime reports are inaccurate. In both its first and second report of crime data to the Legislature. the DOE qualified the accuracy of the information provided by school districts. One reason for the inaccuracy is that individual schools may have used different criteria in defining what constitutes a crime. For example. assault is defined as "an unlawful attempt. •• to cotmnit a violent injury on the person of another." and a strict interpretation of this definition would include a school yard fist fight. However, in discussing this example with various administrators, the Commission determined that there is some variation among schools in determining how serious a fight has to be before it is recorded as an assault on the school crime report. One school district administrator stated that he reports all fights because they involve students; other administrators, however, stated that they would not report all fights because, in some cases, there is mutual intent on the part of the individuals fighting. Another example of inconsistency in the definition of what constitutes a crime is shown by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The LAUSD reports only those incidents in which a victim was identified and a crime was reported through one of the local law enforcement agencies.~ The LAUSD's administrators responsible for the school crime report stated that because the report is called a "crime" report. and all crimes are reported to law enforcement. only those incidents reported to a law enforcement agency should be reported to the State. The administrators acknowledge that even though some incidents that result in suspensions or expulsions are also classified under one or more of the categories on the school crime report, thes'e incidents are not reported to the DOE if they are not reported to a law enforcement agency. According to the DOE. however, the LAUSD's method of reporting contradicts the intent of the school crime reports. The assistant superintendent of the DOE's Instructional Support Services Division and the School Climate Unit's principal consultant for the program agreed that the school crime reports should measure the amount of social disorder on school campuses that disrupts students' education, regardless of the involvement of law enforcement agencies. Although the DOE officials acknowledged that nowhere in the report's instructions or the "School Crime Handbook" is it specified that all suspensions and expulsions related to the categories on the school crime report should be reported, they stated that, in the three years since the program's inception, the DOE has consistently advised school personnel to report all incidents that result in suspensions, expulsions, and/or injuries. Two administrators from different districts confirmed the DOE's claims; the administrators each had participated in the DOE's workshops and each stated that they report all suspensions and expulsions. Since only between 25 and 30 percent of all school districts attended the DOE's workshops and the DOE consistently explains instructions at the workshops, it appears that because not all school districts attend the -28- DOE's workshops there is more opportunity for inconsistency in the interpretation of the DOE's instructions. In addition, because the DOE's written instructions are not more explicit, it is unclear to the districts that the intent of the school crime report is to measure the amount of social disorder on school campuses that disrupts students' education, to measure that disruption regardless of the involvement of law enforcement agencies, and to identify all incidents that result in suspension, expulsions, and injuries. Moreover, it appears that the report is misnamed because it does not have a title that suggests the inclusion of all incidents regarding school disciplinary action. The inconsistencies in interpretation of the DOE's instructions may account for some of the obvious inaccuracies in the statistics provided by the school districts. In his testimony before the Commission, the Superintendent of Public Instruction gave a few examples of inaccurate reporting, including: In the first year of reporting, one elementary school district with an enrollment of 20,000 students reported 2,336 assaults while the largest unified district in the State with an enrollment of nearly 600,000 students reported only a total of 1,345 assaults. After working with the DOE, the elementary district reported a total of 137 assaults in the second year; and An urban district with an enrollment of 37,000 students reported a total of 76 assaults while another urban dietrict with an enrollment of nearly 46,000 students reported 2,754 assaults. It appears that these inaccuracies occurred because of inconsistencies in interpreting the DOE's instructions. It is unclear, however, whether the inconsistencies were the result of the districts' faulty interpretations or the DOE's faulty instructions. Regardless, these inconsistencies clearly result in inaccuracies. Differences in Data Collection In providing testimony to the Commission, the Superintendent of Public Instruction suggested another cause of the inaccuracies in the school crime report. He suggested that schools probably vary in how systematically they collect and record school crime data. This reason implies the likelihood that some schools have developed sophisticated reporting and data recording procedures, while other schools may approach the task in a less structured and, possibly, less thorough manner. The Superintendent indicated that schools that do not have an organized and consistently applied data collection system are more likely to underreport crime. The underreporting of crime, whether intentional or not, obviously results in inaccurate reports. Intentional Underreporting of Crime Some school administrators intentionally underreport the amount of crime activity in their districts because they fear that their districts might receive adverse publicity as a result of the reports. According to the testimony given to the Commission by the Superintendent of Public -29- Instruction, some schools may have underreported the incidence of crime on their campuses to avoid the stigma of being labeled a "high crime campus." The Superintendent gave the example of a comparison among the first-year reports provided by three large urban districts, two of which have enrollments of more than 36,000 students and are very similar in socio-economic status. One of the two districts reported 145 incidents of substance abuse and the other district reported only 8 incidents. The third district, a nearby elementary district with an enrollment of more than 12,000 students, reported no incidents of substance abuse, assaults, aggravated assaults, or sex offenses. In its second report of crime data to the Legislature, the DOE stated that it had documented several cases of intentional underreporting during the 1985-86 reporting period, and that it had followed up on the cases. One of the cases involved the elementary district just described. The second-year data for the elementary district did not contain any obvious omissions, and the DOE suggested that the problem of intentional underreporting may have been less of a factor in the second year of the crime reporting program. The unwillingness of schools to report all crime because of the fear of adverse publicity is not without foundation. The media places pressure on schools in the way that it covers the DOE's reports to the Legislature. The Superintendent of Public Instruction related an instance in which a union high school district in the San Joaquin Valley reported an increase in substance abuse crimes from 26 incidents in fiscal year 1985-86 to 71 incidents in fiscal year 1986-87. The Superintendent claimed that the increase was because the district had worked~cooperatively with the Sheriff's Department in an undercover operation during the second reporting year. The district also reported that 72 lockers were broken into; the break-ins occurred mostly on weekends. As a result of the district's diligence, the local papers reported that the district "Led the Valley in Crime" for that year. Another pressure exerted by the media is its unpredictable coverage of the school crime reports; specifically, the presentation 'of the same information in completely different contexts. For example, when the DOE's second report to the Legislature was issued, one prominent newspaper carried the headline, "California school crime jumps four percent," while another prominent newspaper's headline read, "School crime rate down in state." This lack of consistency demonstrated by the media could be one of the reasons why some administrators are reluctant to report all crimes. No Enforcement of Law Another fundamental cause for the inaccuracy of the reports is that, until 1989, there are no measures for the enforcement of the law. Although Penal Code 628 requires school districts to report incidents of crime, the law did not provide any penalties for the districts' failure to report or for intentional misreporting. Moreover, the legislation did not provide any funding for the DOE's monitoring of the districts' completion of the reports or the accuracy of the reports. Consequently, in addition to the lack of accuracy of the reports that were submitted, some counties failed to submit reports. to the DOE. For the first year of the School Crime Reporting Program, 50 school districts failed to submit at least one of the two semi-annual reports; 26 districts failed to submit reports in the - -30- second year. The combination of intentional underreporting and failure to report indicated a need for enforcement measures. In 1988, the Legislature approved Assembly Bill 2583 (Stirling) which was enacted to become Section 14044 of the Education Code and Section 628.2 of the Penal Code (Chapter 78, Statutes of 1988). This legislation makes school principals responsible for reporting crime statistics to the county superintendents of schools and makes the county superintendents responsible for reporting to the State. This measure further authorizes the Superintendent of Public Instruction to levy a penalty against school districts or county offices of education if their school crime reports are not submitted or are intentionally misleading. Under these circumstances, which would be determined by the DOE, the Superintendent of Public Instruction may withhold from the state apportionment to a school district or county office of education an amount equal to one-half of the county superintendent's salary. Because this law does not take effect until January 1, 1989, its results are limited. In his testimony to the Commission in August, 1988, the Superintendent of Public Instruction claimed that the DOE used the penalty to threaten 20 districts that were late with their semi-annual reports; the Superintendent stated that all 20 districts submitted their reports as a result of the threat. It is not clear how a penalty that is not enforceable until January, 1989 could be effective prior to August 1988. Nevertheless, although the penalty may prove effective in getting districts to submit their reports, the penalty_'.s effects on the accuracy of the reports may be minimal without monitoring by the DOE. In fact, the DOE still has no funding for any monitoring activities to ensure the accuracy of the reports. For fiscal year 1989-90, the DOE has submitted to the Department of Finance a budget change proposal requesting additional funding for staff to verify the accuracy ot" the districts' reports. In a preliminary decision, however, the Department of Finance rejected the proposal and' indicated that the previous two years' augmentation of the program's budget already supported the DOE's verification efforts. Contrary to the Department of Finance's statement, verification of the counties' reports currently is not possible because the DOE has only one person budgeted for the school crime report. Further, although the Department of Finance's rej ection statement acknowledges Assembly Bill 2583, it incorrectly claims that "there is no penalty for false reporting" and that the bill "will have a minor impact on workload which should be absorbable. " The lack of a system of monitoring districts' completion and submission of the school crime reports could render Assembly Bill 2583 meaningless. In addition, the penalties allowable under Assembly Bill 2583 may not provide enough incentive for districts to report accurately. The provision of criminal sanctions or penalties, such as those for the non-reporting of child abuse incidents and for perjury, may provide a better incentive for county superintendents to report and to report accurately. Effects of Inaccurate Reports Inaccurate reports can have a variety of adverse effects, most of which will allow the problems of school crime and violence to perpetuate. For -31- example, without accurate reports, districts cannot effectively analyze crime problems on their schools' campuses and direct appropriate resources to schools that need the resources to eliminate the incidence of school crime. Likewise, state, county, and local government agencies cannot develop or revise intervention and prevention strategies when accurate information on school crime is not available. In addition, as some of the examples of district comparisons given earlier in this report have shown, if some schools underreport their incidence of school crime and/or other schools overreport, unfair or inaccurate comparisons are made among schools, districts, or counties. Finally, the Legislature needs complete and accurate information on school crime before it will enact legislation to assist schools and communities in developing strategies for reducing the incidence of school crime. The Legislature will not accept information that must be qualified because of the various causes of inaccurate reporting. Similarly, it is less likely that the public will support and assist schools in implementing school safety activities if the information presented is not accurate and credible. If not addressed properly, the problems of school crime and violence will persist. Unfortunately, school crime reports submitted by school districts to the DOE are inaccurate, thereby preventing state and local governments and schools and school districts from clearly identifying problem areas and developing or revising strategies to address crime. The inaccuracy of the school crime reports, which ~feats the intent of state law, results from the districts' inconsistent interpretations of the DOE's instructions, the differences in the districts' data collection techniques, the districts' fear of adverse publicity resulting from reports that show a high incidence of crime, and the DOE's inability to properly enforce the reporting requirements. Vigorous leadership by the Superintendent must be exercised to ensure compliance with reporting laws. .'-". -32- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions Students and school staff have the inalienable right to safe campuses; this right is guaranteed by the California Constitution. Despite the guarantee and the fact that school safety is an integral part of education, life on school campuses includes violent crimes, substance abuse, and property crimes. These problems exist, in part, because most schools reflect their communities, because some schools suffer from ineffective administration, and because the State has failed to provide the leadership and direction that is necessary to ensure the safety of children. As a result, many children and teachers are not able to learn and teach because of an atmosphere that is filled with the fear of violence. Further, crime and violence causes some students and staff to suffer from stress. Finally, school crime and violence exposes school s to the legal and financial liabilities of failing to provide a safe environment. If left alone, the problems of school crime and violence will continue. To allow state and local governments, schools, and school districts the opportunity to identify problem areas and develop or revise strategies to address crime, state law requires that school districts report to the DOE statistics on crime committed at schools. However, the reports submitted by school districts are inaccurate. The inaccuracies result from the districts' inconsistent interpretations of the DOE's instructions, the differences in the districts' data collection techniques, the districts' fear of adverse publicity resulting from reports that show a high incidence of crime, and the DOE's inability to properly enforce the reporting requirements. Each of these circumstances diminish the effectiveness of efforts aimed at curbing school crime and violence. Recommendations 1. To encourage parent and community involvement in schools, the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation to provide parents and businesses with incentives, such as tax incentives. The incentives for parental involvement should be contingent upon the parents' participation in, and successful completion of, parenting courses that demonstrate effective child-raising practices and that include activities and techniques that parents can use to assist their children to succeed in school. Further, the training should be designed for each of the developmental phases: pre-school, elementary, middle, and high school. Incentives for community involvement should be available for businesses that allow employees to spend time in their children's classrooms or to participate in their children's school activities at least once per semester with no loss in salary to the employee. 2. To increase the effectiveness of existing cooperative programs between school and law enforcement, the Governor and the Legislature should support the School Safety Partnership by enacting legislation that would allow the partnership to fully implement at least the following activities: - -33- Develop resource materials pertinent to gang prevention and inte rvention; Develop a model school safety safety, and developing and effective use of the assessment instrument for assessing school implementing training for the tool; Provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies in developing school safety plans and strategies for reducing the incidents of school crime; and Identify and promote successful programs in the area of student responsibility, conflict resolution and peer mediation, and non-assaultive environment. 3. To provide leadership and direction to school districts for addressing the problems of substance abuse, the Department of Education should adopt model curriculum standards for alcohol and drug abuse education. The department should adopt the standards no later than April 30, 1989, and the standards should outline a comprehensive program that incorporates the components of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program in Los Angeles. The program should, at least: Provide accurate information related to alcohol and drugs, including the adverse effects of substance abuse; Teach students decision-making skills; Teach students how to resist peer pressure; Give students ideas for alternatives to alcohol and drug use; Encourage students to improve their self concept; and Teach students fundamentals of personal safety. In addition, the program should be introduced to students at the early elementary level and should present new concepts by increasing the depth and complexity of the education at appropriate age intervals. 4. To ensure that the safety concerns of all school districts are addressed, the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that would require through the Department of Education an annual school safety plan for each school, and would require school districts and county offices of education to review and approve the plans and certify to the Superintendent of Public Instruction that each school within their jurisdiction has completed a plan and that the plans address the safety concerns that were identified through a systematic planning process. The process should include, but not be limited to: Assessing the current status of school crime committed on school campuses and at school-related functions; -34- Identifying appropriate strategies and programs that will provide or maintain a high level of school safety; and Developing an action plan, in conjunction with local law enforcement agencies, for implementing appropriate safety strategies and programs, and determining the fiscal impact of executing the strategies and programs. The action plan should identify available resources which will provide for implementation of the plan. In addition, the legislation should require the Office of the State Architect to review all school construction projects for adequate school safety features. 5. To prepare teachers and administrators for the environment in which they will be expected to effectively function, the Department of Education should require, as part of the curriculum for attaining teaching credentials and administrative credentials, training in at least the following areas: 6. Safety; Alcohol and drug prevention and intervention; Youth gang prevention and intervention; Legal responsibilities; and Methods of handling disruptive activity on campus. The Governor and the Legislature should statutorily establish a nongovernmental institute for school safety that has an advisory board that is appointed by the Governor after consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Attorney General. The board would represent, for example, the legal, law enforcement, education, judiciary, probation, insurance, and government communities. The institute's duties would include, but not be limited to: Conducting research on school safety issues; Providing a clearinghouse for information and program models; Collecting and analyzing case law and legal issues; Developing training materials and courses related to school safety for teachers and administrators; Developing training materials and courses for both sworn and non-sworn school security staff; Recruiting volunteers as teachers and consultants on specific school safety topics; Coordinating with the different levels of government responsible for ensuring safe schools; - -35- Working with entities such as the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training to ensure that school safety issues are included in the programs designed to prepare teachers, administrators, and officers for their future jobs; Consulting with local schools, school districts, and county offices of education on the development of safety plans; Creating and maintaining a relevant library; and Sponsoring and arranging for workshops on school safety issues for the legal community including judges. 7. The Governor should designate a percentage of the discretionary state funds now available through the Office of Criminal Justice Planning, the California Youth Authority, and the Federal State Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to assist with implementing school safety programs. 8. To ensure the accuracy of the information reported under the School Crime Reporting Program, the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that allows the Department of Education to mandate attendance by all school districts at the training workshops for the Standard School Crime Reporting Forms. This legislation should amend Section 14044 of the Education Code and Section 628.2-~of the Penal Code (Assembly Bill 2583) to mandate the attendance and provide for a penalty against districts that do not attend the workshops the same as for those that do not submit school crime reports. In addition, the Superintendent of Public Instruction should strictly enforce Assembly Bill 2583 by assessing penalties against any school district or county office of education that does not comply with the law. 9. To further ensure the accuracy of the information reported under the School Crime Reporting Program, the Department of Education should develop and implement a system for monitoring the school crime reports for completeness and accuracy. The system should allow the DOE to annually examine and verify crime reporting procedures in a minimum sample of 50 districts and 10 county offices of education. As part of the verification, the DOE should consider comparing the reports to the districts' suspension/expulsion reports. The Superintendent of Public Instruction should allocate sufficient funds to develop and implement this monitoring system. 10. To clarify that one of the intents of the State School Crime Reporting Program is to measure the amount of social disorder on school campuses that disrupts the education of students, the Department of Education should include in its instructions for completion of the Standard School Crime Reporting Form language that specifies: All incidents that can be classified under one or more of the categories on the reporting form, and that results in the suspension, expulsion, or injury of a student, should be reported ~ .. -36- on the form regardless of the involvement of law enforcement agencies. Further, the Department of Education should rename the reporting form "Standard Form for Reporting School Crime and Disciplinary Incidents." 11. To provide greater incentive to counties to not misreport on the Standard School Crime Reporting Forms, the Governor and the Legislature should enact legislation that provides for criminal sanctions against principals and county superintendents of education who intentionally misreport data on the Standard School Crime Reporting Form. In conjunction with this law, the Standard School Crime Reporting Form should be amended to require principals and county superintendents of education to sign the forms under penalty of perjury. 12. The Superintendent of Public Instruction should assume an aggressive leadership role by placing a high priority on school safety. - -37- APPENDIX Definitions of Violent Crimes and Property Crimes On the "Standard School Crime Reporting Form," which is used by schools and school districts to report the school crime statistics, the category of assault is listed as "assault/attack/menace." The category of aggravated assault is listed as "assault/attack with a deadly weapon." Both of these categories refer to assault, which is defined by Penal Code Section 240 as "an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another," and battery, which is defined by Penal Code Section 242 as a "willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another." Also included in these categories is the placement or throwing of a caustic chemical, the release of injurious or offensive substances, and sexual battery. The sex offenses are distinguished by the severity of the punishment; that is, whether the offenses are misdemeanors or felonies. However, some of the crimes can be punishable as either misdemeanors or felonies depending on the age of the victim. Although misdemeanor crimes such as obscene telephone calls are arguably non-violent, crimes such as sodomy clearly are violent regardless of the age of the victim. Other sex offenses include rape and child molestation. Robbery is defined by Penal Code Section 211 as the "felonious taking of personal property in the possessiqn of another from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accompanied by means of force or fear," and extortion, as defined by Penal Code Section 518, involves "the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear .... " The category of possession of weapons is classified as a violent crime category because of the violence perpetrated with weapons. It is clear that the possession of weapons such as guns, knives, metal knuckles, and some explosives are intended for use in a violent manner. Even the handbook defines the possession of weapons as a crime against persons, and presents the definitions in a section between battery and robbery. Property crimes, as reported by school districts to the Department of Education, are comprised of several categories: arson, burglary, thefts from students, thefts from school, and vandalism. According to Penal Code Section 451, a person is guilty of arson when he or she "Willfully and maliciously sets fire to or burns or causes to be burned or who aids, counsels, or procures the burning of, any structure, forest land or property." Penal Code Section 459 states that burglary occurs when a person enters certain structures or vehicles "with intent to commit grand or petty larceny or any felony." In part, theft is described by Section 484 of the Penal Code as occurring when a person steals, fraudulently appropriates, or defrauds another person of money or property. Finally, Penal Code Section 594 states that vandalism is committed when a person maliciously defaces with paint or any other liquid, damages, or destroys any property not his or her own.