BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 352
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 352 (Hall)
As Amended April 23, 2013
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 5-2 GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION 12-0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Stone, Ammiano, Ian |Ayes:|Hall, Chesbro, Cooley, |
| |Calderon, Garcia, Hall | |Gray, |
| | | |Roger Hern�ndez, |
| | | |Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Medina, |
| | | |Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, |
| | | |Salas, Torres |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+----------------------------|
|Nays:|Maienschein, Grove | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, | | |
| |Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+----------------------------|
|Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, | | |
| |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits smoking in certain licensed residential foster
care facilities. Specifically, this bill :
1)Amends the Community Care Facilities Act (CCFA) to require
persons licensed to provide foster care services to provide a
smoke-free environment in the home in which the foster youth
resides, including garages and bathrooms, and motor vehicles
used to transport the foster youth.
2)Excludes the homes of relative or nonrelative extended family
AB 352
Page 2
members (NREFM) from this prohibition.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Costs associated with this legislation should be minor and
absorbable within existing resources.
2)Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this
measure would not be state-reimbursable because the mandate only
involves the definition of a crime or penalty for conviction of
a crime.
COMMENTS : It is clear from numerous reports and scientific
research that smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke presents
significant health risks to people, and is particularly dangerous
to children. However, the current reality is that, although
undesirable, people still make the conscious choice to smoke.
This includes some who can and do become licensed foster parents,
who are gracious and caring enough to open their home to serve as
a foster family home for a child who has been removed from the
custody of his or her parents due to abuse or neglect.
The author references a 2011 report titled "Smoke-free Foster
Care: Policy Options and the Duty to Protect" in providing
background and the foundation to universally prohibit smoking in
foster family homes. This report documents the reasons and need
to prohibit smoking in foster family homes, listing various data
and past reports that document the importance of maintaining a
smoke-free environment for foster youth due to their heightened
status as being at-risk and more likely to suffer from health
ailments.
The report also goes on to make findings that establishing
smoke-free policies for foster homes do not inhibit the
recruitment or retention of foster families. Specifically, it
states:
Moreover, despite the concern that implementing these
policies would impair recruitment or reduce the number
of foster homes available, foster care managers and
social services administrators in states with these
policies reported no drop in the number of foster
parents attributable to the smoke-free policies since
AB 352
Page 3
they took effect. Three out of the fifteen state
managers surveyed claim their state recruitment
numbers vary, but none reported a causal link to the
smoke-free foster care policy.
However, in further review of this report, it cites a survey
conducted of licensed foster care homes and relative provider care
homes in the state of Michigan as the basis for these findings.
Additionally, the survey found that more than 21% of respondents
who smoked replied that they would not be a foster parent if they
were not allowed to smoke around children, and 7% of relative care
providers stated the same. This is a cause for concern in
correlation to the number of foster homes, relative caregiver or
otherwise, available for placement when compared to the number of
children in foster care in California.
As of January 1, 2013, there were approximately 56,495 children in
foster care, according to the California Welfare Dynamic Report
System, a statewide child welfare database operated in
collaboration by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the
University of California at Berkeley. This number far outweighs
the availability of licensed foster care homes in the state.
According to DSS, as of January 1, 2013, there were 7,007 licensed
foster care homes with a capacity to serve 15,731 foster youth.
These numbers demonstrate that, although the state has
significantly reduced its foster care population over the past 12
years, it still leaves much progress to be made in identifying and
maintaining home-based placements that can provide family-like
environments for our foster youth.
Child Welfare Services : The purpose of California's Child Welfare
Services (CWS) system is to provide for the protection and the
health and safety of children. Within this purpose, the desired
outcome is to reunite children with their biological parents, when
appropriate, in order to help preserve and strengthen families.
However, if reunification with the biological family is not
appropriate, children are placed in the best environment possible,
whether that is with a relative, through adoption, or with a
guardian, such as a foster family or NREFM.
At the time a child is identified as needing child welfare
services and is in the temporary custody of a social worker, the
social worker is required to identify whether there is a relative
AB 352
Page 4
or guardian to whom a child may be released, unless the social
worker believes that the child would be at risk of abuse, neglect
or abandonment if placed with that relative or guardian. (Welfare
and Institutions (W&I) Code Sections 306 and 309)
The Welfare and Institutions Code also lays out the conditions
under which a court may deem a child a dependent or ward of the
court, including when the parent has been incarcerated or
institutionalized and is unable to arrange for care for the child,
such as placement with a known relative. If the child is deemed a
dependent or ward of the court, the court may maintain the child
in his or her home, remove the child from the home but with the
goal of reunifying the child with his or her family, or identify
another form of permanent placement. Unless the child is unable
to be placed with the parent, the court is required to give
preference to a relative of the child in order to preserve the
child's association with his or her family.
Current smoke-free requirements in foster care : Although not
specifically stated in statute, the California Code of Regulations
(CCR) prohibits smoking in the home and on the grounds of the
home. It should be noted that in addition to not existing in
current statute, this prohibition also does not apply to Foster
Family Homes (FFHs) and Certified Family Homes (CFHs) overseen by
Foster Family Agencies (FFAs).
In its establishment of smoke-free regulations, DSS cites a 2006
report by the Surgeon General of the United States "The Health
Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke" as grounds
for the prohibition. Written as the second edition of the report
previously published in 1986, it updated the evidence of the
harmful effects of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.
The report found that exposure to secondhand smoke: is harmful
and hazardous to the health of the general public and particularly
dangerous to children; increases the risk of serious respiratory
problems in children, such as a greater number and severity of
asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections, and
increases the risk for middle ear infections; is a known human
carcinogen (cancer-causing agent); and causes lung cancer and
coronary heart disease in nonsmoking adults.
It specifically went on further to demonstrate that efforts to
accommodate for smoking and smoke-free areas are ineffective in
AB 352
Page 5
combating the consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke:
Research reviewed in this report indicates that
smoke-free policies are the most economic and
effective approach for providing protection from
exposure to secondhand smoke. But do they provide the
greatest health impact? Separating smokers and
nonsmokers in the same airspace is not effective, nor
is air cleaning or a greater exchange of indoor with
outdoor air. Additionally, having separately
ventilated areas for smoking may not offer a
satisfactory solution to reducing workplace exposures.
Policies prohibiting smoking in the workplace have
multiple benefits. Besides reducing exposure of
nonsmokers to secondhand smoke, these policies reduce
tobacco use by smokers and change public attitudes
about tobacco use from acceptable to unacceptable.
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
FN: 0000515