BILL ANALYSIS Ó
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 212|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 212
Author: Beall (D)
Amended: 8/30/11 in Senate
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 7-0, 06/28/11
AYES: Liu, Emmerson, Berryhill, Hancock, Strickland,
Wright, Yee
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 5-0, 07/05/11
AYES: Evans, Harman, Blakeslee, Corbett, Leno
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 6-1, 08/25/11
AYES: Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Emmerson, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 05/26/11 (Consent) - See last page
for vote
SUBJECT : California Fostering Connections to Success Act
SOURCE : California Alliance of Child & Family Services
California Youth Connection
Childrens Law Center of Los Angeles
County Welfare Directors Association of
California
John Burton Foundation
Judicial Council of California
SEIU State Council
The Alliance for Childrens Rights, Youth Law
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
2
Center
DIGEST : This bill makes various clarifying and
substantive changes to the California Fostering Connections
to Success Act of 2010 in order to ensure proper
implementation on January 1, 2012, and also makes changes
to existing state law in order to comply with various
provisions of federal law.
ANALYSIS : Existing law:
1.Establishes the California Fostering Connections to
Success Act of 2010 which, among other provisions:
A. Provides for the extension of transitional foster
care to eligible youth up to age 19 in 2012, age 20 in
2013, and upon appropriation by the Legislature, age
21 in 2014 as a voluntary program for youth who meet
specified work and education participation criteria;
and,
B. Requires changes to the Kin-GAP program in order to
allow for federal financial participation in the
program. (AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, Statutes of
2010)
1.Defines a "non-minor dependent" as, on or after January
1, 2012, a current or former foster child between the
ages of 18 and 21 who is in foster care under the
responsibility of the county welfare department, county
probation department, or an Indian tribe and is
participating in a transitional independent living plan.
2.Provides that a non-minor ages 18-21 shall continue to
receive foster care assistance under certain conditions,
including that the non-minor is otherwise eligible for
AFDC-FC benefits, has signed a mutual agreement, and one
or more of the following conditions exist:
A. The non-minor is working toward their high school
education or an equivalent credential.
B. The non-minor is enrolled in a postsecondary
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
3
institution or vocational education program.
C. The non-minor is participating in a program or
activity designed to promote or remove barriers to
employment.
D. The non-minor is employed for at least 80 hours per
month.
E. The non-minor is incapable of doing any of the
activities described in (a) through (d) above, due to
a medical condition, and that incapability is
supported by regularly updated information in the case
plan of the non-minor.
1.Defines, on or after January 2, 2012, a "period of trial
independence," as a period of no more than six months,
unless authorized by the juvenile court, during which the
court may terminate and subsequently resume jurisdiction
and Title IV-E foster care benefits to an otherwise
eligible non-minor dependent.
2.Requires, in certain circumstances, parents of foster
children to make child support payments upon referral by
the county child welfare department to the local child
support agency. Provides for an exception to be made
when the referral to the local child support agency would
compromise the stability of the child's permanent
placement plan with a relative caregiver receiving
Kin-GAP.
3.Requires the probation department and the child welfare
services department in each county jointly to develop a
written protocol for the coordination of an assessment of
a minor child for consideration by the juvenile court.
4.Requires the Judicial Council to adopt court rules by
January 1, 2012 in order to allow a non-minor dependent
to appear telephonically in juvenile court proceedings
related to a petition to reenter foster care following a
trial period of independence.
5.Defines a "mutual agreement" as an agreement of consent
for placement in a supervised setting between a minor or
non-minor dependent and the placing agency that, in the
case of a non-minor dependent, documents the continued
need for supervised out-of-home placement and the
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
4
agreement between the non-minor and the social worker or
probation officer to work together to facilitate
implementation of the mutually developed supervised
placement agreement and transitional living plan.
6.Requires states, under federal law, to develop a
transition plan with foster youth, addressing specified
outcome areas 90 days prior to emancipation, and to
include information about the importance of designating
someone to make health care treatment decisions on behalf
of the child in addition to the option of a health care
power of attorney, health care proxy, or similar
document.
This bill revises the reentry provisions for nonminors
established in AB 12 in response to guidance received from
the ACF. In place of the period of "trial independence"
established under AB 12, this bill requires a county
welfare or probation department to complete a voluntary
reentry agreement with a nonminor reentering care and
establish a new eligibility determination based on the
completed agreement. Based on a reentry rate of four
percent of exiting cases to return, approximately 100 cases
per month will be impacted. To the extent additional
county administrative time is required to complete a new
eligibility determination and assist the nonminor with
completion of the voluntary reentry agreement could result
in state-reimbursable costs of an unknown but potentially
significant amount. Because the federal program is
optional, increased workload mandated on local agencies
could be considered state-reimbursable. However, if the
state fails to comply with federal requirements under the
optional program, the state could be at risk of loss of
federal funds. As the assumptions for federally eligible
cases in AB 12 were based on placement type, there is no
change in the estimated number of federally eligible cases
under the revised reentry provisions of this bill.
This bill clarifies the delinquency provisions established
in AB 12. Specifically, a new "transition" jurisdiction is
created, and provides for a clear process for the courts,
child welfare agencies, and probation departments to follow
in order to implement the policy principles envisioned in
AB 12 for foster youth on probation. The Judicial Council
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
5
has indicated the new provisions related to transition
jurisdiction will not have a fiscal impact beyond what has
been imposed on the courts under existing law pursuant to
AB 12.
Existing law provides that whenever a youth comes within
the jurisdictional description of both dependency and
delinquency, the county probation department and the child
welfare services department must determine what status is
in the youth's best interest pursuant to a jointly
developed written protocol. This bill requires the jointly
developed protocol to contain specified processes,
including a process for determining which agency and court
shall supervise a child whose jurisdiction is modified from
delinquency to dependency or transition jurisdiction, and a
process that specifically addresses the manner in which
supervision responsibility is determined when a nonminor
becomes subject to adult probation supervision. To the
extent the requirements for the written protocols exceed
those under existing law could result in increased
state-reimbursable costs to county probation and child
welfare departments of an unknown amount.
AB 12 inadvertently deleted the high school completion rule
for foster youth placed with relative caregivers prior to
age 16 and for guardianships ordered in probate court.
This bill provides for the continuation of benefits for a
youth aged 18 who is attending high school or the
equivalent and is reasonably expected to complete the
program prior to his or her 19th birthday. DSS has
indicated the caseload impact associated with these
provisions is estimated to be only two cases annually,
therefore, the fiscal impact is estimated to be minor.
This bill expands existing requirements upon placement
agencies under the California Community Care Facilities Act
to report incidents of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a
nonminor dependent by a licensed caregiver to the
appropriate licensing agency. Violation of the Act is a
misdemeanor. By expanding the definition of an existing
crime, this provision will result in non-reimbursable local
costs for enforcement.
This bill also provides for changes to existing law in
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
6
order to be in compliance with the federal requirements
under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Amendments of
2001, and the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of
2006. The PSSF program provides grant funds to states to
support child welfare services program efforts to promote
stability and permanency for at-risk children within
families. This bill revises statute to reflect the
allowable allocation of PSSF funds among service categories
within PSSF and the allowable allocation for administrative
expenses. As the proposed amendments will bring statute in
line with current practices, there is no fiscal impact
resulting from this change. DSS receives approximately
$35.5 million in PSSF funds annually. In the absence of the
specified changes to current law, California could be at
risk of federal penalties and loss of federal funds.
This bill further amends current law to comply with federal
requirements under P.L. 110-351 and the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act of 2010 by adding the power of
attorney for health care and information regarding the
advance health care directive form to the information
provided to a foster youth during the 90-day period prior
to emancipation. The provision of these additional
documents is not estimated to result in any significant
fiscal impact. Consistent with other federal compliance
amendments in this bill, the state could be at risk of
federal penalties or loss of federal funds in the absence
of these changes to existing law.
Existing law requires DSS to allocate 70 percent of the
amount payable to placements of nonminors under the
Transitional Housing Program (THP)-Plus Foster Care (FC)
program, with the remaining 30 percent to be available to
serve the caseload of youth under the THP-Plus program, as
specified. This bill would direct counties that opt to
participate in the THP-Plus and THP-Plus FC programs to
establish a goal of allocating 70 percent under the
THP-Plus FC program. However, if a county can demonstrate
there is insufficient demand in either of the programs to
achieve the targeted percentage allocations, the county may
reallocate funds between the two programs to meet the
existing demand. Further, this bill requires the DSS to
develop a mechanism to determine how counties opting out of
the THP-Plus program are to receive funding based on the
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
7
operation of THP-Plus FC only. DSS indicates there would
be no net change in overall funding as a result of these
changes to existing law.
This bill requires county child welfare services agencies
to submit to the DOJ fingerprint images and related
information on prospective THP-Plus Foster Care providers,
as well as do a check against the Child Abuse Central Index
(CACI) before issuing a certificate of approval to a
THP-Plus Foster Care provider applicant. DOJ is authorized
to charge a fee sufficient to cover the costs of processing
the requests and will not incur any net costs. County
welfare agencies and DSS will incur significant costs
associated with these provisions. Although the bill
authorizes DSS to include the costs of the fingerprinting
and CACI fees when determining the application and renewal
fees to charge providers, there will be additional
state-reimbursable costs associated with increased county
workload for this new process.
This bill adds double-jointing language to avoid chaptering
out issues with AB 717 (Ammiano), and AB 735 (Mitchell).
Background
Each year in California, about 5,000 youth emancipate from
foster care, which is by far the largest number of any
state in the union. Over the past ten years, according to
data from the state's Child Welfare Services/Case
Management System, managed by the Center for Social
Services Research at the University of California,
Berkeley, about 52,000 Californians have emancipated from
foster care (from 3,974 in 1998-99 to 5,387 in 2008-09).
Studies have shown that former foster youth, when compared
to other young adults of the same age and race, are less
likely to complete high school, attend college, or be
employed. They are also at a higher risk for becoming
homeless and arrested or incarcerated.
In 1998, California established the Kinship Guardianship
Assistance Payment program (the Kin-GAP program) to provide
financial assistance for children who, after being adjudged
dependent children of the juvenile court, are placed in
legal guardianship with a relative. (SB 1901, McPherson,
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
8
Chapter 1055, Statutes of 1998.) The bill was a result of
a study that concluded that most relative caregivers have
strong commitments to the children in their care, but are
averse to adoption as it requires the termination of the
parental rights of one of their family members. Moreover,
while most relative caregivers supported permanency
planning for a child, many did not pursue legal
guardianship for fear of losing the needed financial
support they obtained under the foster care system. To
date, Kin-GAP has been successful in reducing the number of
children in foster care. In 2009, the Kin-GAP program
assisted approximately 14,500 former foster children living
with relative guardians. However, unlike foster care or
adoption assistance, there historically have been no
federal funds available for relative guardianships.
Instead, all Kin-Gap costs have been borne by California.
In October, 2008, the federal government enacted the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act (Public Law 110-351) (Act). The Act offers states the
opportunity to opt-in to new federal funding streams if
they choose to provide kinship-guardianship benefits to
relative guardians or if they provide foster care to 18 to
21-year-old youth.
Last year, AB 12 (Beall, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010)
enacted the California Fostering Connections to Success
Act. AB 12 allows California to draw down federal funds
for a significant part of California's decade-old
state-funded Kin-GAP program. Additionally, AB 12
authorized the juvenile courts to exercise jurisdiction
over nonminor dependents between the ages of 18 to 21 if
they meet the specified criteria.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2011-12
2012-13 2013-14 Fund
Elimination of phase-in of$1,500-$2,000 in 2011-12;
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
9
$4,000-$6,000 General
extended benefits to age 20in 2012-13; additional costs in
the millions
if benefits extended to age 21 in 2014
Reimbursement of Kin-GAP Up to $1,300
annually General
non-recurring expenses
Reentry agreement
Unknown; potentially significant state-
General
provisions/written protocols reimbursable costs
THP-Plus FC provider
Costs to DOJ fully funded by fees;
Special*
background checks
potentially significant state-reimbursable
Fed/General
costs for new process
Restoration of high schoolMinor costs; approximately $16
annually General
completion rule for Kin-GAP
Expanded abuse/neglect
Non-reimbursable local law enforcement
Local
reporting requirementscosts offset to a degree by fine
revenue
*Fingerprint Fund Account
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/11)
California Alliance of Child & Family Services (co-source)
California Youth Connection (co-source)
Children's Law Center of Los Angeles (co-source)
County Welfare Directors Association of California
(co-source)
John Burton Foundation (co-source)
Judicial Council of California (co-source)
SEIU State Council (co-source)
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
10
The Alliance for Children's Rights, Youth Law Center
(co-source)
Advancement Project
Aspiranet
California Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
California Coalition for Youth
California Family Resource Association
California Probation Parole and Correctional Association
California State Association of Counties
City and County of San Francisco
County of San Bernardino
Family Law Section of the State Bar
Judicial Council
Junior League of California State Public Affairs Committee
Junior League of Los Angeles
Junior League of Napa-Sonoma
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 75-0, 05/26/11 (Consent)
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall,
Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Carter,
Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Dickinson, Donnelly, Eng, Feuer,
Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth Gaines, Galgiani,
Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Hall,
Harkey, Hayashi, Roger Hernández, Hill, Huber, Hueso,
Huffman, Jeffries, Knight, Lara, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal,
Ma, Mansoor, Mendoza, Miller, Mitchell, Monning, Morrell,
Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel
Pérez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio,
Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. Pérez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Campos, Cedillo, Davis, Gorell, Jones
CTW:nl 8/30/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AB 212
Page
11
CONTINUED