School psychologists; school safety program
SB 1138 amends Arizona’s school safety program statute to explicitly include school psychologists as eligible personnel whose costs may be supported through the program. The bill continues to allow school districts and charter schools to apply for up to three fiscal years of funding to place school resource officers, juvenile probation officers, school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers on campus. It also updates the application and program requirements for both law-enforcement-based safety grants and counseling/intervention-based grants.
For proposals involving school counselors, school psychologists, and school social workers, the bill requires a detailed school guidance, counseling, and intervention plan that addresses community resources, service use, evaluation methods, confidentiality, parent and family notification, and referral procedures. For proposals involving school resource officers or juvenile probation officers, it retains the requirement for a law-related education strategy and trained officers. The Department of Education remains responsible for reviewing proposals, verifying need using relevant data, distributing funds subject to State Board approval, and reporting annually on program outcomes.
The bill amends A.R.S. § 15-154, the statute governing the school safety program, by adding school psychologists to the list of personnel supported by the program and by refining the proposal requirements for counseling and intervention services. It preserves existing authority for grants supporting school resource officers and juvenile probation officers, while also maintaining reporting, audit, and appropriation rules, including the exemption from lapsing appropriations and the requirement that funds be used only for approved program proposals. The bill affects school districts, charter schools, the Arizona Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and participating law enforcement and community mental health partners.
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive and programmatic rather than contentious. The measure is framed as a school safety and student support update, with an emphasis on expanding access to mental health and counseling resources in schools while preserving existing safety staffing options. No formal opposition, amendments, or divided votes are shown in the provided record.
The main policy tension inherent in the bill is between two approaches to school safety: staffing schools with law-enforcement personnel versus expanding counseling, psychological, and social work services. The bill also requires parent and family notification and communication before implementing counseling and intervention plans in feasible and appropriate circumstances, which could raise privacy and implementation concerns for some stakeholders. Another possible point of contention is the continued use of crime statistics and school-level social/emotional data to justify funding decisions, as well as the prioritization of grants where districts share costs with law enforcement or courts.