This Fiscal Note is not an official copy and should not be quoted or cited.
Fiscal Note - SB 0615 - School Safety & Discipline
L.R. NO.  2452-01
BILL NO.  SB 615
SUBJECT:  Schools:  Safety and Discipline
TYPE:     Original
DATE:     January 15, 1996



                              FISCAL SUMMARY
                    ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON STATE FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED              FY 1997             FY 1998          FY 1999
General Revenue             ($0 to              ($0 to           ($0 to
                         $171,730)           $180,325)        $184,833)

Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
State Funds                ($0 to               ($0 to           ($0 to
                        $171,730)            $180,325)        $184,833)

                   ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED             FY 1997              FY 1998          FY 1999
None                           $0                   $0               $0
Total Estimated
Net Effect on All
Federal Funds                  $0                   $0               $0

                    ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDS


FUND AFFECTED              FY 1997             FY 1998           FY 1999
Local Government               *$0                 *$0               *$0

*The proposal could result in a redistribution of state aid through the
foundation formula.


                              FISCAL ANALYSIS

ASSUMPTION

Officials from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)
assume the proposal would result in no fiscal impact to the department but
would result in a redistribution of state aid under the foundation formula.
On the average the proposal would not increase the cost to fully fund the
formula.  DESE states the districts which would receive more or less in state
aid is unknown.   DESE assumes the training required by districts to all
employees on the discipline policy and the additional reporting could be
provided with current resources.

Officials from the St. Louis Public Schools assume revisions in the proposal
concerning school safety and discipline appear consistent with existing City
Board policies.  The proposal could require revisions to the code of student
conduct; however, the budget considerations at this time would appear to be
negligible.

Officials from the Department of Public Safety-Office of the Director and
Highway Patrol, Department of Social Services-Division of Youth Service,
State Public Defender, Motor Vehicle Commission, Office of Prosecution
Services, Office of Administration and Department of Mental Health assume the
proposal would result in no fiscal impact to their departments.

Officials from the Department of Corrections (DOC) state that no data exists
from which to gauge the impact to the department resulting from the proposal.
DOC assumes the impact would be minimal due to the narrow scope of the crime,
therefore limiting persons that might be incarcerated.

Officials from the Office of State Courts Administrator assume the proposal
could result in a small increase in the number of cases filed but no
significant increase in the workload of the courts.

Officials from the Attorney General's Office (AGO) state that the proposal
would require them to defend actions by local school boards related to
decisions to expel pupils.  They state that given the over 500 local school
districts, the AGO would expect a tremendous number of requests for legal
aid.  They assume an average of 4 cases per district, which would be
approximately 180 cases per attorney.  They assume they would need 11 FTE
Assistant Attorney General's I ($30,000 annually, each), along with 4 FTE
Legal Secretaries ($17,500 annually, each).  They assume data processing
equipment costs would be $3,600 per FTE ($54,000 total in FY 97) and
furniture costs would be $3,100 per FTE ($46,500 total in FY 97).  They
estimate travel costs at $4,100 per year per FTE, office expense at $2,750
per year per FTE, communication expense at $3,350 per year per FTE, data
processing costs at $1,000 per year per FTE, furniture costs at $350 per year
per FTE, and other costs at $500 per year per FTE (total of  these costs
approximately $190,000, annually).

The Oversight Division assumes the FTEs for the Attorney General's Office
would not be necessary until the cases become too numerous for them to handle
with existing resources.  Therefore, the Oversight Division has shown these
costs as a range, beginning with zero.   The Oversight Division has reduced
the AGO estimate to one case per school district.

FISCAL IMPACT - State Government     FY 1997     FY 1998     FY 1999
                                    (10 Mo.)
GENERAL REVENUE FUND

Cost-Attorney General's Office
  Personal Service                 ($83,333)  ($102,500)  ($105,062)
  Fringe Benefits                   (25,616)    (31,508)    (32,296)
  Expense and Equipment             (62,781)    (46,317)    (47,475)
Total Cost-AGO                           ($0         ($0         ($0
                                          to          to          to
                                   $171,730)   $180,325)   $184,833)

FISCAL IMPACT - Local Government     FY 1997     FY 1998     FY 1999
                                    (10 Mo.)

                                          $0          $0          $0

The proposal could result in a redistribution of state aid through the
foundation formula.

Long-Range Fiscal Impact-State Government
The Oversight Division assumes the Attorney General's Office could incur
additional costs, depending on the number of cases handled by their office.

DESCRIPTION

The proposal would require all teachers to receive annual instruction on the
policy of discipline.  The policy would require school administrators to
report acts of school violence to school district employees.  School
administrators would be required to report to law enforcement acts involving
violence.  Each school district would be required to compile and maintain
records of any serious  violation of the district's discipline policy.

The proposal would allow handicapped children with disabilities resulting in
violent behavior to  be moved to more appropriate placement.

A school board could authorize the immediate removal of a pupil upon finding
by the school that the pupil poses a threat of harm to himself or others.

A school board could not readmit or enroll a student properly suspended for
ten or more consecutive school days for an act of school violence without
first holding a conference to review the conduct that resulted in suspension.

When requested by a school district, the Attorney General would aid in the
defense of any actions brought by a pupil or his parents to appeal a decision
by the school board.

The board of each school district would be required to establish a policy on
academic dishonesty and a policy regarding the use of profane language.

The proposal would exempt homeless children from certain registration
requirements, including proof of residency in the district.

Within forty-eight hours of enrolling a student the school official would be
required to request all academic records and discipline records from all
schools previously attended within the last twelve months.  Schools receiving
such requests would respond within seven days of receiving the request.  The
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education would be required to
establish rules to ensure the enforcement of the provisions.

For purposes of distributing state aid, a child receiving educational
services provided by the district in which the child actually resides, other
than the district of domicile, would be included as an "eligible pupil" of
the district providing the educational services.

The juvenile officer would be required to notify the superintendent of the
school district of acts committed by the juvenile, including murder,
kidnapping, assault, rape, robbery, or arson.

The proposal makes crimes of assault against a teacher in the first degree a
class A felony and in the second degree a class B felony.  Assault in the
third degree would be a class A misdemeanor.

This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other
program and would not require additional capital improvements or rental
space.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of State Courts Administrator
Department of Public Safety
Department of Mental Health
Department of Corrections
State Public Defender
Office of Prosecution Services
Office of Administration
Department of Social Services-Division of Youth Services
Attorney General's Office
Motor Vehicle Commission
St. Louis Public Schools

NOT RESPONDING:  Kansas City School Board