HB 345 creates a new section of Florida law requiring each public school to develop a school elopement plan and establish a School Staff Assistance for Emergencies (SAFE) Team. The bill defines “elopement” for students with disabilities as leaving school supervision or grounds without notice, and it defines the covered disabilities as autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. Each school’s plan must include procedures for immediately contacting a parent when a student elopes, and the SAFE Team must include the principal, assistant principal, and at least five additional members.
The bill also requires the SAFE Team to create and annually update the school elopement plan, respond to elopements, and train all school personnel on the plan and related procedures. For students prone to elopement, the team must work with parents to prepare a student-specific quick reference guide containing identifying information, a photo, communication level, interests, behaviors, preferences, aversions, health considerations, GPS technology that may help locate the student, and likely destinations. Schools must provide their elopement plans annually to the district school board, and the State Board of Education is authorized to adopt implementing rules. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
HB 345 would add a new statutory requirement in chapter 1003, Florida Statutes, imposing school-level planning, training, and reporting duties focused on student elopement. It would affect public schools, school administrators, teachers, parents of students with disabilities, and district school boards by formalizing response protocols and requiring individualized safety information for certain students. The bill does not create a new student discipline framework; instead, it establishes operational and safety procedures intended to reduce risk when students with disabilities leave supervision unexpectedly.
The available context suggests the bill was generally aimed at a child-safety and special-education support issue, with no recorded committee debate or vote breakdown provided. Its final status indicates it died in the Education & Employment Committee, which suggests it did not advance despite the policy being framed as a safety measure for vulnerable students. Because no transcripts or votes are included, there is no documented opposition or support in the provided materials beyond the bill’s introduction and committee disposition.
The main policy questions likely center on the scope of the mandate and the administrative burden on schools. Potential points of contention include whether every public school should be required to create a SAFE Team, whether the bill’s definition of covered disabilities is too narrow, and how much time and staffing would be needed to create, update, and train personnel on the required plans. Privacy and data-sharing concerns may also arise from the required student-specific quick reference guides, which include photos, health considerations, behavioral information, and possible locations the student may go when eloping.