Truancy Policy in Richmond, CA: An Incremental Approach
This paper examines the truancy problem in Richmond, California, and analyzes the city council's 2010 ordinance imposing a daytime curfew for school-age youth through the framework of incremental policy-making theory. After defining truancy and its links to juvenile delinquency, dropout rates, and daytime crime, the paper describes the ordinance's graduated sanctions and enforcement mechanisms. It then applies Charles Lindblom's incremental model to explain why the policy was designed as a modest, step-by-step departure from existing California Education Code mandates rather than a sweeping reform. The paper concludes that incremental approaches, while not producing the most ideally transformative outcomes, generate the political consensus necessary for practical implementation and continued refinement.
- Introduction: Truancy as a Public Health and Safety Concern: Defines truancy, its harms, and Richmond's ordinance
- The Incremental Model of Policy-Making: Explains Lindblom's incremental decision-making theory
- Richmond's Daytime Curfew Ordinance Through an Incremental Lens: Applies incremental model to Richmond's curfew policy
- Policy Analysis and Future Directions: Evaluates outcomes and recommends ongoing research
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It anchors a local policy case study — Richmond's 2010 daytime curfew — in a clearly named theoretical framework (the incremental model), giving the analysis both practical and academic grounding.
- The paper moves logically from problem definition, to theory explanation, to theory application, and finally to recommendations — a structure that is easy to follow and builds cumulative argument.
- It acknowledges opposition to the ordinance (concerns about criminalizing youth) while explaining why incremental design enabled unanimous council approval, demonstrating balanced analysis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates theory-to-practice application: it defines the incremental model of policy-making in abstract terms (Chapter Two) before systematically mapping each feature of that model — marginal change, trial-and-error adjustment, consensus-building, deficit orientation — onto specific provisions of the Richmond ordinance. This technique shows readers not just what the policy does, but why it was designed the way it was.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four named chapters. Chapter One establishes the problem context, defines truancy under California law, and introduces the Richmond ordinance. Chapter Two provides a theoretical overview of the incremental policy model and its attributes. Chapter Three applies that model directly to the Richmond case, analyzing specific ordinance provisions. Chapter Four synthesizes findings, discusses limitations, and calls for continued research and policy revision. References follow APA format throughout.
Introduction: Truancy as a Public Health and Safety Concern
Truancy — habitually being absent from school without valid justification — is an epidemic that is increasingly plaguing school communities throughout the United States. Public concern about truancy stems from its link to more serious issues, including juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior (Garry, 1996). Truancy has also been found to correlate with 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 academic achievement, lack of school success, low self-esteem, parental ineffectiveness, and the absence of meaningful consequences for absences (Sommer & Nagel, 1991).
According to Garry (1996), many communities are reporting an increase in daytime crime as a result of delinquent teens being present in the community during times when they would otherwise be in school. The rise in truancy can therefore be linked to a rise in petty crimes. Youth who are truant are at increased risk of failing to develop the skills that lead to successful navigation of adult life and future employability (Garry, 1996).
Each state has laws mandating that youth attend school daily, but enforcement of these laws has been problematic (Rogers, 2010). Interventions have included returning truant youth to school, taking them home to their parents, or bringing them to the police station until a parent could pick them up. In some cases, truancy has been overlooked due to the difficulties involved in enforcing these laws. However, with steadily increasing truancy rates, juvenile delinquency, and daytime crime, many cities have been forced to take action to curb this epidemic.
The California Department of Education identifies truancy in a very specific manner. California Education Code Section 48260(a) defines a truant as any student who is required to attend full-time school but is absent without a legitimate excuse for 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 must 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 escalates into more serious problems for their youth.
Teenage truancy continues to be a serious issue for many urban communities. In Richmond, CA, for example, it has been estimated that an average of 450 teenagers are truant every day (Rogers, 2010). Richmond's city council members and community stakeholders have decided to address this matter directly. On June 13, 2010, the Richmond City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance imposing a daytime curfew for all youth enrolled in the school system (Rogers, 2010). The goal of this ordinance is to begin addressing truancy as well as its associated dropout rates and incidence of juvenile delinquency. The ordinance makes it illegal for youth to be in public during school hours — specifically, starting 30 minutes after school begins and ending 30 minutes before the school day concludes (Rogers, 2010). This curfew was slated to take effect the following school year, pending resolution of outstanding implementation issues.
The ordinance permits police officers to detain youth found in public during school hours (Rogers, 2010). These youth may receive a citation, be referred to juvenile court, and/or have fines issued to them and their families. Police officers will exercise discretion in determining an appropriate intervention, such as arresting a youth or bringing them to a parent's place of employment. If a youth is caught in violation more than three times in a single school year, the law allows the youth's parents to be charged with a misdemeanor (Rogers, 2010). Youth centers will be established to receive students who have skipped school and to provide interventions aimed at identifying the reasons for truancy and facilitating regular school attendance.
Policy makers and police stress that their intent is not to be punitive or to criminalize youth (Sommer & Nagel, 1991). However, rising truancy rates remain a serious concern, and current policies have not had a significant impact on this phenomenon. There is also concern that parents may be unaware that their child has been truant; notification may therefore prompt interventions and much-needed parental support (Sommer & Nagel, 1991).
Hypothesis: Public policies that seek to intervene in 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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.