Truancy Policy in Richmond California

Truancy Policy in Richmond California

Truancy Policy in Richmond, CA

Truancy, the unexcused absence from school, is a nationwide epidemic that is impacting today's youth and their ability to obtain a solid education. Truant behaviors have been found to be correlated with the development of juvenile delinquency and future criminal acts (Garry, 1996). Policy makers in Richmond, CA have unanimously voted to implement an ordinance that builds from the California Department of Education mandates that states that all children must attend school regularly. This ordinance implements a daytime curfew for all school age children with graduated sanctions for both youth and their parents as a result of noncompliance (Rogers, 2010). This decision has received much support from citizens who are concerned with the rise in day time criminal acts which have increased in this area as the truancy rate has risen. A daytime curfew alone will not solve all the truancy issues in this town but it is a step in the right direction. It is an example of a time when the produced results will be politically feasible even if they are not the most desirable outcome, which would be youth dedication to their educational outcomes (Zimmer, 2004).

Truancy Policy in Richmond California

Chapter One

Truancy, habitually being absent from school without valid justification, is an epidemic that is increasingly plaguing the school communities throughout the United States. Public concern about truancy is due to a link between truancy and more serious issues including juvenile delinquency and criminal acts (Garry, 1996). Truancy has been found to be correlated to future dropout rates, as students fall further and further behind academically (Garry, 1996). Many studies have shown a direct relationship between truancy and substance abuse, as well as engagement in adult crime. Some studies have associated truancy with low achievement, lack of success in school, low self-esteem, parental ineffectiveness, and the absence of consequence for absences from school (Sommer & Nagel, 1991).

According to Garry (1996), many communities are reporting an increase in daytime crime as the result of delinquent teens being in the community during times when they were previously in school. Therefore the rise in truancy can be linked to a rise in petty crimes. Youth who are truant are at increased risk for not developing many of the skills that will lead to successful navigation of adult life and employability (Garry, 1996).

Each state has laws that mandate that youth attend school daily but enforcement of these laws has been problematic (Rogers, 2010). Interventions have included bringing truant youth back to school, home to their parents or to the police station until a parent could pick them up. In some cases truancy has been ignored due to the difficulties in enforcing these laws. However, with the steady increase in truancy rates as well as juvenile delinquency and day time crimes, many cities have been forced to take action to curb this epidemic.

The California (CA) Department of Education (DOE) identifies truancy in a very specific manner. The California Education Code Section 48260 (a) defines a truant as any student who is mandated to full-time education but is absent from school without a legitimate excuse three full days or who is tardy or absent for more than 30 minutes during the school day on three occasions throughout the school year, or a combination of the two. In these cases the youth should be reported to school authorities for intervention. Through the implementation of a public policy, the Richmond, CA City Council has chosen to address the issue of truancy before it leads to more serious issues for their youth.

Teenage truancy continues to be a serious issue for many urban communities. For example in Richmond, CA it has been estimated that an average of 450 teenagers are truant daily (Rogers, 2010). The Richmond California city council members and community stakeholders have decided to come together to address this matter head on. On June 13, 2010, the Richmond, CA City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance that imposes a daytime curfew for youth enrolled in the school system (Rogers, 2010). The goal of this ordinance was to begin to address truancy as well as its resulting drop-out rates, and incidence of juvenile delinquency. The ordinance makes it illegal for youth to be in public during school hours, specifically 30 minutes after school has started until 30 minutes before the school day concludes (Rogers, 2010). This curfew will potentially take effect next school year once all of the potential issues are worked out.

This ordinance allows police officers to arrest youth who are found in public during school hours (Rogers, 2010). These youth could receive a citation, be sent to juvenile court and/or fines be issued to the youth and his/her family. Police officers will be able to use their discretion when choosing what intervention to provide such as arresting a youth or bringing them to his/her parent's place of employment. If a youth is caught more than three times in one school year, the law allows for the youth's parents to be charged with a misdemeanor (Rogers, 2010). Youth centers will be set up to receive youth who have skipped school and to provide interventions geared at identifying why the youth is truant and implementing services to facilitate regular school attendance.

Policy makers and police stress that they are not trying to be punitive or to criminalize youth (Sommer & Nagel, 1991). However, the rising rates of truancy continue to be of concern and current policies have not had a significant impact on this phenomenon. There is also concern that parents may not be unaware that their child has been truant and notification may lead to interventions and much needed assistance on the part of the parent (Sommer & Nagel, 1991).

Hypothesis: Public policies that seek to intervene with the issue of truancy will positively impact truancy rates in communities and decrease the number of youth engaging in at-risk, socially unacceptable, or delinquent behaviors.

Chapter Two

The incremental model is believed to be a conservative approach to decision making, one that is common place in public policy. It is one of the most popular approaches to public policy and can be observed in most bureaucratic environments (Jones, 1973). The incremental model for decision making is a process by which small incremental steps are taken toward policy change (Zimmer, 2004). This model has been accredited to Charles Lindblom who claimed that policy changes emerge from subtle changes in current policies rather than a lofty goal that has been set (Zimmer, 2004). In the policy making process, only a small number of options are reviewed and any changes that occur tend to be marginal (Timmer, 2004). These changes do not result in a major overhaul of current policy but rather are gradual adjustments meant to sustain long-term change (Hanney, Gonzalez-Block, Buxton, & Kogan, 2003). It is believed that this conservative approach will allow more policies to be publicly supported as they build upon current programs that are often in the public favor. These changes build off of existing policies with which the public is familiar with therefore increasing the likelihood that improvements will be readily accepted (Timmer, 2004).

In the incremental model, new policies are a slight variation on old policies using the belief that since past policies were accepted they must have some legitimacy (Jones, 1973). In this way, the model can be viewed as more of a reform process allowing policy makers to make modest decisions (Jones, 1973). Incremental policy making reviews existing programs or policies as a foundation to build from when implementing change (Timmer, 2004). In this manner, it is not necessary to create new programs or policies rather one can build upon and improve on previously established groundwork (Timmer, 2004). This cautious approach safeguards against the potential negative outcomes that can be found in significant radical reform methods (Jones, 1973)

This model postulates that small or incremental shifts are more effective because they can isolate particular areas of need rather than attempting to address all aspects of an entire issue all at once and with a single solution (Hanney et al., 2003). Starting with small incremental steps makes change more manageable and breaks difficult issues into small pieces. The incremental model is also believed to be less controversial and more comprehensive (Hanney et al., 2003). Hanney et al. (2003) attribute this to the cautious nature of the incremental model which makes change easier to accept in small doses and the policies are more readily accepted because they do not require a redistribution of values or a completely different approach to a problem. This model tries to improve the acceptability of public policy and breaks difficult or controversial policies into smaller more manageable pieces (Jones, 1973). The incremental model will produce results that are politically feasible even if that is not the most desirable outcome (Timmer, 2004).

Incremental decision making is geared at solving current problems within an existing framework rather than anticipating future needs and setting long-term goals (Timmer, 2004). This method for solving problems at times appears to be trial and error rather than a comprehensive evaluation of policies or systems (Timmer, 2004). This may be in part due to the fact that we are in a time when resources are limited and the economy is such that new programs often cannot be developed and existing programs are struggling to sustain financially. Therefore, the ability of policy makers to make changes to societal circumstances relies on incremental changes to expenditures and manpower in order to facilitate change (Jones, 1973). These shifts often need to occur within existing frameworks in order for the possibility of improvement to exist. For example, in order to implement policy change, resources may need to be shifted from one service area to another in a small but meaningful way.

Policy decisions can be tested and adjusted as they are implemented and executed in order to ensure that they are effective. Since this model makes common the notion of small steps, revisions of current practices will become more readily accepted. According to Timmer (2004), decision making in this manner can be viewed as a state of continued negotiation and adjustment.

Chapter Three

The history of implementation of procedures to address truancy can be seen from an incremental model, in that although policies have been in place for quite some time, only small changes that build off existing policies have occurred. The incremental model certainly explains why we have not seen major changes in the manner in which truancy is address nationwide and more specifically in the state of California. In deciding to implement this ordinance of a daytime curfew for school age children, the city council is building from California state law that finds youth in violation if they are missing from school for any period greater than 30 minutes during the school day.

The first step of implementing the day time curfew builds upon this legislation. Sanctions will be imposed in a graduated fashion with each incidence receiving a more severe infraction from being returned to school up to being arrested and detained. This policy is built upon the knowledge that truancy is an issue in Richmond with as many as 450 students having unexcused absences on any given day (Rogers, 2010). This is an incremental approach that focuses on the problems rather than setting a future oriented goal such as that 90% of youth who attend the school system will be excited about participating in the education system. It can be viewed as a deficit approach, how to fix what is broken.

This ordinance will be implemented in a gradual manner and appears to be designed in such a manner that one piece will be implemented at a time to ensure that it is effective, a trial and error approach. For example, under current procedures youth have been detained and brought to the police station to await their parent's arrival. However, at times this has proven to be an inefficient use of police resources as it can take a great deal of time for a parent to arrive to pick up their child. Under the new ordinance, a police officer now has the discretion to bring the youth to the parent's place of employment and eventually to a receiving facility for truant youth.

This legislation has been met with much resistance including opponents who are concerned with the criminalization of youth. Despite this, these incremental changes were approved by the city council. This may not have been the case if the proposal had called for radical measures. This ordinance was unanimously voted on by the city council which tells us that the changes to existing programs were small enough that all parties were able to see the benefit in their implementation. Educational policies aimed at decreasing truancy often times have not been updated to address the growing number of youth who are truant every year. In some cases these policies were not seen as needing to be changed.