June 1999

The Becca Bill: The Rest of the Story

by Mary Yu, Kaki A. Dimock and Shannon Anderson

The April issue of Bar News included an article on some of the difficulties of implementing the recently enacted Becca Bill. This article outlines some of the reasons for continuing to improve upon and maintain the strategies underlying the Becca Bill.

The Becca Hedman story is just one among many tragic stories of young people whose lives and deaths are difficult to comprehend.¹ Her traveled path was heartbreaking, and any two-sentence summary of it will simply not do justice to the multiple facts and circumstances surrounding this person's life, even with the benefit of hindsight. We do know, however, that a young person was allowed to self-destruct while systems and institutions designed to assist young people were at a loss for finding a meaningful entry point into her life.

The Washington State Legislature responded to this tragedy by enacting legislation which recognized the family and community-based institutions as primary entry points for intervention into a young person's life. Furthermore, within the context of other laws which safeguard the right of a child to be free from domestic abuse or violence, the Becca Bill was designed to include other actors in a young person's life who can do something before it is too late.

Contrary to assertions made by critics of the law, the primary goal of the Becca Bill is not to have juveniles "locked up in juvenile detention."² Rather, the goal is to provide protective services to children and families before a child is allowed to self-destruct.³

"The legislature recognizes there is a need for services and assistance for parents and children who are in conflict. These conflicts are manifested by children who exhibit various behaviors including: Running away, substance abuse, serious acting out problems, mental health needs, and other behaviors that endanger themselves or others."⁴

The legislative intent is clear and specific and should be read in its entirety before presumptively assuming that detention is the goal and that children's "rights" are endangered. Nothing could be further from the truth. These findings and intent do serve, however, as the framework for evaluating whether the cure really is worse than the disease. The underlying operative principle of the Becca Bill is that early detection and intervention are the key to preventing a pattern of "Beccas." Is the law perfect? No. Are the resources to implement it adequate? No. Is the work of implementing the bill worth the effort? Yes!

Detective Maryann Parker of the Seattle Police Department's Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Unit, formerly with Seattle Team for Youth, an innovative program designed to identify and provide services to at-risk kids, believes that this law provides communities, parents and youth specific tools to address a child's unique needs and allows for the mobilization of support from many areas. "The ARY/CHINS process gives us time and opportunity to obtain an accurate assessment of the child's situation and to find out what is available to them from their family and from community-based resources. This process can help us to hold parents accountable for the safety and well-being of their children, if necessary, and, unlike many similar processes, it allows children a voice in the courtroom." Detective Parker remembers one case in which the law allowed her to pick up a child who was so severely addicted to heroin that she weighed 90 pounds and was unable to care for herself. Detective Parker credits the law with saving this particular girl's life.

King County Superior Court Judge Patricia Clark also remembers cases in which the Becca Bill allowed concerned family members to take action to protect a child. Judge Clark points to the ways in which the law provides community support for the efforts of parents who had no recourse prior to the passage of the Becca Bill. "The ARY/CHINS provisions in the Becca Bill make it possible for the community to protect children from being harmed or harming themselves. While the bill is not perfect and it is often difficult to access services, the Washington State Legislature is bringing other resources to bear on this issue. We are all trying to redirect and coordinate resources so that these kids and families get the services they need."

An examination of the law and its implementation provides compelling evidence that the effort is not only worthwhile, but has proven successful in enough cases that the experiment of making truant or at-risk youth the center of public policy deserves our continued attention and resources. As this forum is too limited to accurately examine the ARY/ CHINS and truancy process in detail, what follows is a description and analysis of the truancy provision contained in the Becca Bill.

Last year, there were 4,841 truancy petitions filed in King County Superior Court.⁵ The number of hearings totaled 3,941.⁶ These numbers are staggering, but school districts report that 80 percent of those students who have had a truancy petition filed against them have successfully returned to school. This phenomenon is supported by the Office of the Administrator for the Courts, which recently reported that 87 percent of truancy petitions filed statewide do not require a contempt motion to ensure compliance with the court's order to attend school.⁷ Just as impressive is the fact that countless numbers of students are returning to school without a petition being filed, because of the new policy focus on accountability for attendance and staying in school.⁸

In accordance with the truancy provisions of the Becca Bill, school districts are required to file a truancy petition when a child has seven unexcused absences within a month and actions by a school district to reduce the absences are not successful.⁹ The statutory requirements imposed upon school districts prior to filing a petition include (1) informing the parent of such absences and the implications for additional unexcused absences; (2) scheduling a parent conference; and (3) taking concrete steps to reduce the absences by schedule adjustments, providing vocational services, and assisting the parents and/or students to obtain supplementary services that might address the underlying causes of the truancy.¹⁰

Because of the mandatory filing timelines, school districts in King County generally file a petition with a motion for a stay. The temporary stay allows the schools to undertake additional interventions before involving the court any further. If the additional interventions are not successful, a hearing is scheduled. Since the proceedings are not criminal and the goal is to get the child back into school, the truancy hearing does not involve legal counsel. The statute specifically permits school districts to be represented by a nonlawyer representative.¹¹ If there are facts sufficient to support the allegations in the petition, the court then orders the child to return to school. A typical court order might include a requirement for regular school attendance without any unexcused absences or tardies, drug and alcohol evaluation, and regular meetings with the school counselor. In most cases, there is no factual dispute about the absences. Rather, the more significant challenge lies in addressing the underlying reasons for the truancy.

The cases actually heard by the court are the cases that need more attention. Some are resolved quickly and others require intense monitoring by the court. As expressed by King County Court Commissioner Kimberley Prochnau, "For many of these youth, all they need is a wake-up call before they get too far down the road. The fact is that the majority of cases are successfully resolved. We often serve as a facilitator for connecting young people to their families, schools and social service entities. In my opinion, it is worth the court's time and resources if I can make a difference in just one kid's life."

Although most of the school districts report that the majority of truant youth return to school, the bulk of the school district's time and resources end up being spent on the smaller number of students who have serious social problems or learning disabilities. School districts are reimbursed approximately $80 per petition filed, but there has been no monetary appropriation for reimbursing school districts for the actual costs of the more time-consuming social interventions. These interventions range from mental-health counseling to substance-abuse counseling and/or providing specialized learning environments for students.

Not all of the interventions require intense social services and some simply require flexibility by all parties. For example, in a case where earning academic credit midway through the school year became the primary concern for the returning youth, the court and school struck a compromise where the student would earn partial credit for returning to school. The court recognized that there was no incentive to return to school unless some credit would be provided. The school district accepted the challenge and in response designed an alternative program for the child which gave the student at least some academic credit. The truancy statute does not address the extent of the required interventions, but in the majority of cases some creativity and persistence by all has provided new opportunities for young people to reconnect with school.

The burden of scrambling to find the resources has taken its toll on schools and has some wondering whether it is worth the effort, despite the actual increase in attendance. Yet a significant number of those working on truancy admit that the most important policy feature of the truancy law is that schools and parents are finally being forced to take note of who is in school and who is missing, and to find creative solutions for finding and keeping kids in school. Notwithstanding the financial challenge of implementation, it would be a mistake if we believe that we can use the truancy law to solve all of the social problems that young people face. It is only an entry point into a young person's life and is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

Among the strong supporters of the Becca Bill were King County Superior Court Presiding Judge Bobbe Bridge and King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng. Judge Bridge, who has been an advocate for services to juveniles for almost two decades, saw the legislative effort as a way to get involved early in a young person's life — early enough to make a difference. She, too, notes that most of the cases that get filed can be easily resolved and serve as a mechanism for getting everyone the support they need early enough in the ball- game to change the path to be traveled. "Next to families, schools are one of the most significant social institutions for a young person. Schools in King County have stepped up to the plate to not only help kids stay in school but, in working with kids on a daily basis, they have helped to identify other patterns of behavior that may actually be the reason why the kid is not in school in the first place or why they are having trouble learning." As the guardian of judicial resources, Judge Bridge recognizes the strain put on the court system and on schools. Yet, she firmly believes that the time and energy put into early interventions will pay off in the long run.

King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng concurs with this vision of early intervention as a way to keep kids out of the criminal justice system. "I believe we all would be remiss if we did not recognize that truancy prevention efforts provide an opportunity to be of assistance to a young person when they are first sending the signals that something is wrong. Getting involved early gives everyone a chance to address some of the family or social issues before they are manifested in a destructive way."

A unique feature of the Becca Bill has been its effort to involve the surrounding community. One of the many resources available to school districts is the use of a community truancy board. Community truancy boards offer school districts a way to take advantage of the interest, skills and expertise of volunteers in their own communities and reduce the amount of time spent in court on truancy petitions. Community truancy boards are authorized by the Washington State Legislature to establish attendance requirements and other appropriate action designed to reduce a student's absences.¹² Community truancy boards meet with truant students and their parent/guardian(s) to identify the often elusive reasons for their non-attendance and to create intervention plans to help the student resume regular attendance. These intervention plans may include action steps for the student, the parent/guardian(s) and the school district. If the school districts choose, this plan may be written as a stipulated order and, upon agreement of all the parties, may be submitted to the court for approval and, therefore, serve as the fact-finding hearing.

here are six school districts in King County currently using community truancy boards as interventions and alternatives to appearing in court for the fact-finding hearing. The volunteers in these districts make up a total of 24 separate boards who meet, generally, once a month, and see as many as three families each time. These boards allow for and create powerful partnerships between schools, the court and communities who share the responsibility for the safety and success of our students. While the widespread use of community truancy boards in King County is too new to have been formally evaluated, school districts report that the boards are keeping some families from ever having to step foot in juvenile court on a truancy petition. The parent/guardians(s) who have returned satisfaction surveys administered in one district report feeling that the process was empowering and meaningful for them. King County Superior Court has supported the 19 school districts in King County in the development of community truancy boards by creating a handbook and hiring a full-time truancy board development manager who can help districts in the design of a board as well as with recruiting and training of volunteers.

Much of the controversy about the Becca Bill has been the fear of incarceration. Implementation of the law has never been about detention. A juvenile may be detained under the statute but, in fact, it has always been applied as a last resort and under extraordinary circumstances. The King County Truancy Steering Committee has made finding alternatives to detention a priority.¹³ In cooperation with the Department of Youth Services (DYS), efforts to support non-secure facilities and day-reporting programs are a priority. In addition, it is not the general practice of DYS to house truants with criminal offenders. With limited resources, DYS has responded to the concern raised by the underlying policy goal of getting kids in school and has dedicated staff to truancy prevention efforts. Most of the children coming through detention are actually there for a very brief time, as they are in detention for disobeying a court order and, in accordance with civil contempt laws, they are given immediate opportunities to purge their contempt.¹⁴ This often translates into writing a paper for the court on "The Importance of Staying in School" or "The Consequences of Missing School." They are assisted by legal counsel and afforded every due process available.¹⁵

The following is an actual case which is concrete evidence that the effort is worth the time. Because of the Becca Bill, seventh-grader Stephen Witt was back in school and smiling at a supportive group of school staff who were smiling back at him. Stephen's mother, Joan, beamed with pride as she acknowledged that Stephen had taken a positive step to a better future. It was the first time in a long while that Stephen had attended school with regularity. At this gathering in Stephen's honor, staff from the Kent School District recalled their extensive efforts to encourage and compel Stephen to go to school. They went so far as to stop by the Witts' home some mornings to make sure that he was awake and getting ready for school.

In late 1997, the Kent School District filed a truancy petition with the King County Juvenile Court requesting that it intervene in the effort to return Stephen to school. Stephen's parents and the school district had already made extensive but fruitless efforts to ameliorate his truancy. Stephen did not suffer from any disability or affliction but rather, as he admits, he was intentionally underachieving. The strong-willed seventh-grader went to great lengths to spend his days lounging on a couch at home. He simply refused to go to school. King County Superior Court commissioners jogged his academic awareness after a series of truancy hearings in 1998. The Court granted the school district's truancy petition and directly ordered Stephen to attend school. Stephen appeared before the Commissioner multiple times in 1998, as the Court crafted creative conditions to compel him to go to school. In November, the Kent School District finally reported to the Court that "Stephen is doing very well."

"It's going to help get kids in school," Stephen recently said about the Becca process. Surrounded by school staff, he openly credited the Court, the school district, and his mother for pushing him in a positive direction. He predicted that had he not faced the authority of the Court and the possibility of significant remedial sanctions, he would likely still be wasting his time on the couch while other children were in school.¹⁶

Stephen's success story is the norm rather than the exception when it comes to evaluating the impact of the Becca Bill. A 1998 study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy states that court data indicated that during the 1996-97 school year, only about seven percent of the truant students in Washington continued to miss school after the school district filed contempt orders in court. The study stated that over 12,000 petitions had been filed statewide. Based on these figures, the Becca Bill has already influenced thousands of children like Stephen Witt, and made them prioritize their education. Whether the Becca process will have a permanent effect on these children can only be measured by their attendance at their high-school graduation ceremony. But one thing is for certain: the truancy provisions mandated by the Becca Bill have given children a greater chance to succeed.

Kaki A. Dimock, M.S.W., is the truancy board manager at the King County Superior Court.

Shannon Anderson, J.D., is a deputy prosecuting attorney in the King County Prosecutor's Office. He is assigned to work with school districts on implementing the truancy laws.

Mary Yu, J.D., is deputy chief of staff in the King County Prosecutor's Office and has been involved with truancy issues since 1993.