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.