BILL ANALYSIS SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Senator Carol Liu, Chair BILL NO: AB 1905 A AUTHOR: Cook B VERSION: March 17, 2010 HEARING DATE: June 10, 2010 1 FISCAL: Appropriations 9 0 CONSULTANT: 5 Park SUBJECT Foster care: funding: placement approvals SUMMARY Requires the approval of an approved relative or nonrelative extended family member foster care provider to remain in force during the reapproval process. ABSTRACT Existing federal law: 1.Authorizes federal funding for state foster care programs pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, under an approved state plan. 2.Requires states to apply the same licensing standards to all foster family homes receiving Title IV-E funding, including relative and nonrelative caregiver homes. Existing state law: 1.Provides for the establishment and support of a statewide Continued--- STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 (Cook) Page 2 child welfare system through the Department of Social Services (DSS) and county welfare departments. 2.Sets forth standards for the licensure of foster family homes and approval of relative and nonrelative extended family member homes. Exempts the homes of relative and nonrelative extended family members, as defined, from licensure. Requires the licensing standards for foster family homes to be used in the evaluation and approval process for relative and nonrelative caregiver homes. 3.Provides for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, which provides for the funding of foster care placements through a combination of federal, state, and county funds. Provides for AFDC-FC payment to eligible children placed in licensed or approved homes, as specified, including the approved home of a relative or nonrelative extended family member. 4.Requires county departments of welfare, with oversight from DSS, to evaluate and approve or deny the home a relative or a nonrelative extended family member, for purposes of AFDC-FC eligibility, immediately following the placement of a child in the home. This bill: 1.Requires an approval to remain in full force and effect when an annual reassessment visit is pending for the home of a relative or nonrelative extended family member. 2.Requires that payments to the relative or nonrelative extended family member not be delayed or terminated solely due to late completion in the annual reapproval process, such as a late home visit or corrective action plan. 3.Specifies that no appropriation shall be made pursuant to specified law to implement these provisions. FISCAL IMPACT According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, no STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 (Cook) Page 3 significant costs are associated with this legislation. The committee analysis notes that eliminating the need for county social workers to temporarily shift relative caregivers from the federal foster care program to a state-only program could result in some administrative savings for the counties. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Author's statement The author states that, for the purposes of receiving federal payments for foster care and adoption assistance (under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), California currently exceeds federal requirements for annual reassessments of relative caregivers. The author points out that state law does not require annual renewals of foster family homes, but does require annual reassessments of relative homes, while the federal IV-E requirement mandates the same standards for these homes. The author also points out that the state additionally requires federal and state funding to be terminated when an annual reassessment is not completed on time, while nothing in federal law prohibits continued payment to a foster provider once the provider is initially licensed and approved to provide care. The author states that, due to high workloads at the local level, counties struggle to complete these annual reassessments on time, and both the state and counties lose federal funding. Additionally, the author notes that when this funding is lost, payments for foster children are made from CalWORKs, which creates additional workloads for the county, a significant reduction in payment amount to the caregivers, and the risk of placement disruption. The author points to the recently concluded federal IV-E eligibility audit of 2009, which cited cases in error when the state failed to stop AFDC-FC payments for a late relative reassessment. The author argues that these errors, fiscal repayments, and the subsequent performance improvement plan could have been avoided if the state did not itself require that IV-E payments cease when reassessments are late. Higgins v. Saenz (CPF-02-501937 (Cal. Supr. Crt., Los Angeles County, Oct. 24, 2002)) In 2002, the Youth Law Center filed a lawsuit, alleging the STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 (Cook) Page 4 Department of Social Services had not provided adequate oversight of the approval process for relative homes. The suit charged that some children were living in substandard and dangerous conditions because of the state's failure to require counties to investigate fully relative homes and to provide assistance to relatives in meeting licensing requirements. According to the National Center for Youth Law, the settlement, which was filed October 31, 2002, required uniform, statewide standards for foster parents who are related to the children in their custody. It also called for audits and required counties to help unqualified relatives meet the standards, rather than simply discounting such relatives or removing the children from them. As part of the Higgins v. Saenz settlement, DSS issued several all county letters, implementing the relative approval monitoring process. As part of its instruction, DSS required counties to perform an initial assessment of relative caregiver homes, followed by annual reassessments for all relative caregivers (which were stated in the Higgins settlement). DSS has also required that AFDC-FC payments to relative caregivers be terminated if the annual reassessment is not completed within one year of the initial approval. Arguments in support The sponsor of this bill, the County of San Bernardino, writes that it currently has approximately 1,500 children placed with relatives, and, due to the reduction in its child welfare service allocation, processing the annual reassessment in a timely fashion has become an extremely daunting task. San Bernardino County states that, under state regulations, the federal funding for these placements stop, resulting often in an "overpayment" to that home for the month the home was not deemed in compliance; for any overpayment to a relative caregiver, the state must re-pay the federal government its share and cannot recoup these costs from either foster parents or counties based on current law. The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) writes that the loss of these benefits ultimately harms the foster children in these homes and may cause a disruption in placement. CSAC believes the bill will provide an STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 (Cook) Page 5 economical way to streamline the continuation of critical funding for foster children residing with relative caregivers, and will help to conserve scarce state and county dollars and staff time. The County Welfare Directors Association states that the bill will eliminate the state penalizing itself for a requirement that does not exist in federal law. Supporters argue that DSS effectively applies a higher standard to the approval process for relative caregiver homes, as only a portion of licensed nonrelative foster family homes are reassessed on an annual basis; and moreover, federal law does not prohibit continued payment to a foster care provider once the provider is initially licensed and approved to provide care, and such payments to licensed homes are not terminated under the same conditions. Related/prior legislation AB 1695 (Assembly Committee on Human Services) Chapter 653, Statutes of 2001, conformed state law with the federal Adoptions and Safe Families regulations requiring the same standards for licensing and approving foster family homes, and established the nonrelative extended family member designation. AB 2773 (Aroner) Chapter 1056, Statutes of 1998, conformed state law to the federal Adoptions and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89). The federal act required several changes intended to prevent delays in the decision by county child welfare agencies to begin to seek a permanent home for dependents other than with the child's natural parents. AB 1544 (Assembly Committee on Human Services) Chapter 793, Statutes of 1997, established the priority of placing foster children with relative caregivers and set forth requirements for relative placements. PRIOR VOTES Assembly Floor: 74 - 0 Assembly Appropriations:15 - 0 Assembly Human Services: 6 - 0 STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 1905 (Cook) Page 6 POSITIONS Support: County of San Bernardino (sponsor) California State Association of Counties Chief Probation Officers of California County Welfare Directors Association of California National Association of Social Workers Oppose:None received -- END --