BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 352
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 352 (Hall)
As Amended June 26, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |51-19|(May 16, 2013) |SENATE: |24-8 |(August 19, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: HUM. S.
SUMMARY : Prohibits smoking in specified licensed and certified
community care facilities that serve minors and nonminors.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires licensed group homes, foster family agencies, small
family homes, transitional housing placement providers, and
crisis nurseries that provide residential care to minors and
nonminors to maintain a smoke-free environment.
2)Prohibits a person who is licensed or certified pursuant to
these provisions from smoking in any motor vehicle that is
regularly used to transport the child.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete the smoke-free exemption for relatives or nonrelative
extended family members (NREFM).
2)Add licensed group homes, foster family agencies, small family
homes, transitional housing placement providers and crisis
nurseries to the list of licensed facilities required to
provide a smoke-free environment.
3)Clarify that a person licensed or certified pursuant to the
Community Care Facilities Act (CCFA) shall not smoke in the
vehicle regularly used to transport the child in care.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Amended the 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
AB 352
Page 2
youth.
2)Excluded the homes of relative or NREFM from this prohibition.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
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 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
AB 352
Page 3
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 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 Code (WIC) Sections 306 and 309)
AB 352
Page 4
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
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.
AB 352
Page 5
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
FN:
0001473