This bill creates a new section of Florida law requiring every 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 autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability as leaving a safe or designated area, school supervision, or school grounds without authorization in a way tied to disability-related needs and creating a safety concern. It also excludes ordinary truancy or intentional class-skipping that is not related to a disability.
Under the bill, each school’s elopement plan must set procedures for immediately contacting a parent or guardian when a student elopes, conducting an immediate coordinated on-campus search, and contacting emergency services only when there is verified information or direct observation that the student has left school grounds and is at risk of harm. The SAFE Team must include the principal, an assistant principal, at least three additional school members including the school resource officer, and is responsible for creating and annually updating the plan, responding to elopements, and training school personnel. For students with disabilities who are prone to elopement, the team must also create a student-specific quick reference guide with identifying information, a photo, communication level, interests, behaviors, health considerations, possible GPS tools, and likely destinations.
The bill’s impact is to impose new operational and planning duties on public schools and to formalize a statewide approach to student elopement response. It would add a new statutory requirement in the Florida Statutes, direct annual submission of each school’s elopement plan to the district school board, and authorize the State Board of Education to adopt implementing rules. The practical effect is to require schools to coordinate staff training, parent communication, and individualized safety planning for certain students with disabilities.
Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative debate or voting history. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears safety-focused and supportive of students with disabilities and their families, with an emphasis on prevention and rapid response. No explicit opposition is documented in the available materials.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the school’s duties and the handling of student privacy and operational burden. Schools may need to maintain detailed student-specific information, train staff, and coordinate with parents and law enforcement, which could raise concerns about administrative workload, confidentiality, and how quickly emergency services should be involved. The bill also draws a line between disability-related elopement and non-disability-related absences, which may require careful implementation and staff judgment.
The bill creates s. 1003.211, Florida Statutes, establishing mandatory school elopement planning requirements for public schools. It requires each school to form a SAFE Team, develop and annually update an elopement plan, train staff, prepare individualized quick reference guides for certain students with disabilities, and submit the plan annually to the district school board. It also authorizes the State Board of Education to adopt rules, thereby adding new compliance and administrative obligations for schools and school districts.
No committee discussion or vote history is available, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment to summarize from debate or roll calls. On its face, the bill is framed as a student safety measure designed to help schools respond more effectively to elopement incidents involving students with disabilities, suggesting generally favorable policy intent. The available materials do not show organized support or opposition.
The likely areas of contention are the administrative burden on schools, the need to train personnel and maintain individualized plans, and privacy concerns related to collecting and distributing detailed student information. Another possible issue is the threshold for involving emergency services, since the bill limits that step to situations where the student is reasonably believed to have left school grounds and be at risk of harm. No specific opponents or supporters are identified in the provided record.