Office of the Charles Middleton*

School districts repeatedly identified three particular skills as being essential if SAR Boards are to be effective: law-enforcement skills (e.g., a School Resource Officer), prosecutorial skills (e.g., a Deputy District Attorney), and probation skills (e.g., a Probation Officer). Yet, more often than not, these skills are not present at district SAR Board meetings. Disagree with Findings: The SARB hearing is a district intervention and tool to identify and resolve issues related to truancy and to make a final effort to correct the behavior of the student and/or parent. They are not adversarial or criminal proceedings which would require the presence or skills of a prosecutor. While the Grand Jury Report indicates that prosecutorial skills are essential to a SARB, it does not indicate why. The Report states that two districts would like a district attorney to attend because of the weight of authority it would add. The weight and authority of the District Attorney's Office is brought to bear prior to the SARB hearing in the form of a letter on District Attorney Letterhead instructing the minor and parent to be present at the District Attorney/Parent Meeting, and the presence of a Deputy District Attorney at the District Attorney Parent Meeting held prior to the SARB. During the meeting, the law regarding truancies and the consequences which will result if there are any further truancies is explained in detail by a deputy district attorney. A SARB would only occur if there are additional truancies after being warned at the DA/Parent meeting. The weight and authority of the DA's office would be diminished if after being officially warned, we appear at the SARB to warn them yet again. The District Attorney's Office would be in the position of saying "well, we really mean it this time." If after receiving the letter to attend the DA/Parent meeting, the minor and parents chose not to attend the meeting, which happens in approximately half of the cases, our presence at the SARB sends the message that you may disregard the DA's Office and we will give you another chance to ignore us before we file charges. The most effective warning is at the DA/Parent meeting. The consequences for disregarding that warning should be the filing of charges after all district efforts have failed. District personnel, perhaps with the aid of a probation officer and/or school resource officer, are in the best position to address all issues at a district SARB hearing.

School districts that have chosen to embrace the Truancy Response Project have experienced significant improvements in their truancy problem and increased awareness among parents and students of the importance of regular attendance. As indicated in the Grand Jury Report, school districts which are participating in TRP are Agree with Finding: experiencing improved attendance. The District Attorney/Parent meetings are very effective in getting the message across to students and parents the importance of regular school attendance and consequences of failure to do so. Feedback from the meetings is positive with districts reporting 50-60 percent of the students who attend a District Attorney/Parent meeting have no further truancy problems. The follow through by school districts is critical in the success of the program. Following the District Attorney/Parent meeting, referral to SARB, Probation, and ultimately to the District Attorneys Office, has provided real consequences to the students and parents if the students fail to improve their school attendance. As a result, in even the hard cases, where nothing else has resolved the problem, requiring the minor and/or parent(s) to appear before Judge Hutson has in almost all cases ended the truancy problem.

Truancy support by the Probation Department and the District Attorney's Office needs to be fully funded if these organizations are to be as effective as the school districts would like them to be. The Truancy Response Program is funded by a grant from the Juvenile Justice Crime Agree with Finding: The Funding for the 2004-2005 fiscal year has been approved. The amount, Prevention Act (JJCPA). approximately $131,000.00, covers about the cost of one full time deputy district attorney assigned to the Truancy Response Project. During the last JJCPA meeting, which allocates the grant funding to various projects, there was a strong indication that there would be no further funding for the Truancy Response Project after the 2004-2005 fiscal year. The members indicated that since the school districts were receiving the benefit of increased dollars from the State, due to an increase in their average daily attendance (ADA), the school districts should pay for the program. In light of that indication, Judge Hutson, the Department of Education, the District Attorney's Office and the Probation Department are in the process of preparing a proposal to the school districts to share in the cost of the program. In the event that the grant funding ends before the school districts agree to share in the costs of the TRP, additional funds will be necessary to continue the program. Without the additional funds, the DA/Parent meeting portion of TRP may be eliminated. ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF GRAND JURY – TRUANCY The District Attorney respond to school districts' views that "SAR Boards are a lot of