BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    




                   Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
                           Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair

                                           1933 (Brownley)
          
          Hearing Date:  08/12/2010           Amended: 04/05/2010
          Consultant:  Dan Troy           Policy Vote: ED 7-0
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
          BILL SUMMARY:   AB 1933 would establish the right of foster  
          youth to remain in their "school of origin" for the duration of  
          the jurisdiction of the court despite changes in placement;  
          would provide that foster youth be allowed to complete the  
          academic year in the school of origin in cases where the  
          jurisdiction of the court ends during the school year; and would  
          allow foster youth to continue attending school in the district  
          of origin in the same attendance area, if transitioning to  
          junior high school or high school, as specified.
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____
                            Fiscal Impact (in thousands)

           Major Provisions         2010-11     2011-12       2012-13     Fund
                                                                  
          School of origin                             Likely minor      
          General*
          transportation for                           

          *Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding  
          guarantee
          _________________________________________________________________ 
          ____

          STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.

          Current state law requires educational placements of foster  
          youth to be in the "best interests" of the child.  State law  
          also allows foster youth to remain in their school of origin  
          pending the resolution of any dispute concerning a request to  
          remain in the school.  State law also requires districts to  
          allow foster youth to continue his or her education in the  
          school of origin for the duration of the academic year even  
          after a change in residential placement.  Current law also  
          provides that the selection of the child's residential placement  
          must promote educational stability and to consider proximity to  
          the school attendance area.   











          The federal government recently enacted the Fostering  
          Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008  
          which adds new requirements toward ensuring educational  
          stability for foster youth.  Among other things, the Act  
          requires assurance that that the state agency has coordinated  
          with local education agencies to ensure the child remains in the  
          school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.

          The author's office contends that this bill is merely conforming  
          state law to new federal requirements.  However, federal law is  
          not specific in terms of timeframe for the requirement to allow  
          foster youth to remain in their school of origin.  This bill  
          would allow foster youth to remain in the school of origin or  
          matriculate to subsequent schools in the same attendance area  
          indefinitely.  It is not clear that this is the intent of  
          federal law.  To the extent this bill's requirements exceed  
          federal law, the state could be exposed to 

          Page 2
          AB 1933 (Brownley)

          reimbursable mandate costs.  While allowing students to remain  
          in the school of origin should not result in many new areas of  
          cost exposure (the state pays for the claimed ADA of the pupil),  
          there is a potential mandate cost related to the transportation  
          of foster youth that have Individual education programs (IEP).  

          Federal law requires districts to provide for transportation for  
          pupils with IEPs.  As districts could argue that this bill  
          allows pupils to remain in their school of origin for multiple  
          years after a change of residential placement, they could  
          increase the transportation costs for pupils with IEPs.   
          According to the Department of Social Services, there are at  
          least 40,000 foster youths (FY) between the ages of 5 and 17.   
          Given trends in the overall school population, it is reasonable  
          to assume that at least 4,000 (10 percent) of those FY have  
          IEPs.  DSS estimates annual transportation costs for out of  
          district placements at approximately $1,980 per pupil.  While it  
          is unclear how many pupils would generate new costs, the state  
          exposure is likely significant, perhaps costs of several hundred  
          thousand dollars or in the low millions.  

          Staff notes that there is a proposal in the 2010-11 budget to  
          expand federal reimbursement of educational transportation costs  
          for foster youths with out of district residential placements.   










          It is not clear if that proposal will be sustained in the final  
          budget or if those funds would serve to offset any potential LEA  
          mandate claims.

          Author's proposed amendments would specify that LEAs are only  
          responsible for transportation costs that  result from federal  
          law.