Truancy Policy in Richmond, CA: An Incremental Approach

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.

The Incremental Model of Policy-Making

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.

The incremental model is considered a conservative approach to decision-making and is common in public policy. It is one of the most widely used approaches to public policy and can be observed in most bureaucratic environments (Jones, 1973). The incremental model involves taking small, step-by-step movements toward policy change (Zimmer, 2004). This model has been attributed to Charles Lindblom, who argued that policy changes emerge from subtle modifications of existing policies rather than from ambitious, far-reaching goals (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; rather, they are gradual adjustments intended to sustain long-term change (Hanney, Gonzalez-Block, Buxton, & Kogan, 2003). This conservative approach is believed to allow more policies to gain public support, as they build upon existing programs that are already familiar and generally accepted (Timmer, 2004).

In the incremental model, new policies are slight variations on old ones, operating on the premise that previously accepted policies carry some inherent legitimacy (Jones, 1973). In this way, the model can be understood as a reform process that enables policy makers to make modest, well-supported decisions (Jones, 1973). Incremental policy-making uses existing programs or policies as a foundation from which to build when implementing change (Timmer, 2004). This means it is not necessary to create entirely new programs; instead, one can build upon and improve previously established groundwork (Timmer, 2004). This cautious approach guards against the potential negative consequences associated with more radical reform (Jones, 1973).

The incremental model postulates that small, gradual shifts are more effective because they can isolate particular areas of need rather than attempting to resolve all dimensions of an issue simultaneously with a single solution (Hanney et al., 2003). Starting with small incremental steps makes change more manageable and breaks complex issues into smaller pieces. The incremental model is also considered less controversial and more comprehensive (Hanney et al., 2003). Hanney et al. (2003) attribute this to the cautious nature of the model, which makes change easier to accept in small doses; policies are more readily embraced because they do not require a redistribution of values or a completely different approach to an existing problem. This model works to improve the acceptability of public policy by breaking difficult or controversial initiatives into smaller, more manageable components (Jones, 1973). The incremental model will produce results that are politically feasible, even if those results are not the most ideally desirable outcome (Timmer, 2004).

Incremental decision-making is oriented toward solving current problems within an existing framework rather than anticipating future needs or setting long-term goals (Timmer, 2004). This problem-solving method can at times resemble trial and error rather than a comprehensive evaluation of systems or policies (Timmer, 2004). This may be partly due to the reality that resources are limited and economic constraints make it difficult to develop new programs, while existing programs struggle to remain financially sustainable. The ability of policy makers to effect change in societal circumstances therefore relies on incremental adjustments to expenditures and personnel allocations (Jones, 1973). These shifts often need to occur within existing frameworks for meaningful improvement to be possible. For example, implementing policy change may require shifting resources from one service area to another in a small but deliberate way.