BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 787| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 787 Author: Stone (D) Amended: 9/6/13 in Senate Vote: 21 SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 6-0, 6/11/13 AYES: Yee, Berryhill, Emmerson, Evans, Liu, Wright SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 7-0, 6/25/13 AYES: Evans, Walters, Anderson, Corbett, Jackson, Leno, Monning SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 7-0, 8/30/13 AYES: De León, Walters, Gaines, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13 (Consent) - See last page for vote SUBJECT : Foster care SOURCE : Alliance for Children's Rights California Alliance of Child and Family Services California Welfare Directors Association Children's Law Center of California Judicial Council of California DIGEST : This bill makes clarifying and technical changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (Act) to ensure the continued implementation of the Act. Senate Floor Amendments of 9/6/13 delete language that CONTINUED AB 787 Page 2 eliminated case monitoring for nonminor dependent whose nonrelated guardianship was ordered in juvenile or probate court. They also add conditions under which a nonminor may petition the court for re-entry into dependency, specifically when a guardian, former guardian, or adoptive parent has died. Additionally, they prevent chaptering conflicts with AB 346 in WIC Sections 11400 and WIC 727. ANALYSIS : Existing law: 1.Defines a "nonminor dependent" (NMD) as 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.Defines "nonminor former dependent or ward" as either: A. A nonminor who reached 18 years of age while subject to an order for foster care placement, for whom dependency, delinquency, or transition jurisdiction has been terminated, and who is still under the general jurisdiction of the court; or B. A nonminor who is over 18 years of age and while a minor, was a dependent child or ward of the juvenile court when the guardianship was established, as specified, and the juvenile court dependency or wardship was dismissed following the establishment of the guardianship. 1.Defines a "transition dependent" as a minor who is between 17 years and five months and 18 years of age, who is in foster care, and subject to the court's transition jurisdiction. 2.Establishes the Act, pursuant to AB 12 (Beall, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010), which is a voluntary program for youth who meet specified work and education participation criteria. The Act provides, among other things, for the extension of transitional foster care benefits to eligible youth up to age 21, as specified. CONTINUED AB 787 Page 3 3.Provides for the voluntary continuation or reentry into foster care for nonminor dependents who meet general Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) requirements, and when the nonminor youth has signed a voluntary mutual agreement and one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The nonminor is working toward their high school education or an equivalent credential; B. The nonminor is enrolled in a postsecondary institution or vocational education program; C. The nonminor is participating in a program or activity designed to promote or remove barriers to employment; D. The nonminor is employed for at least 80 hours per month; and/or E. The nonminor is incapable of doing any of the activities described above, due to a medical condition, and that incapability is supported by regularly updated information in the case plan of the non-minor. 1.Provides that nonminor former dependents are not eligible for re-entry into extended foster care as nonminor dependents of the juvenile court. This bill: 1.Clarifies that former NMDs who reached permanency, but whose guardian, relative, or adoptive parent died before their 21st birthday, may re-enter extended foster care. 2.Authorizes probation officers to place NMDs in approved transitional placements, as specified. 3.Adds the existing definition of "transition dependent" to the relevant code section which determines recipients of AFDC-FC. 4.Clarifies how the court may terminate jurisdiction over a NMD. 5.Makes other clarifying and technical changes. Background CONTINUED AB 787 Page 4 According to the Senate Human Services Committee analysis, foster youth who turn 18 while in foster care, but who do not sign an extended foster care agreement, or who leave foster care voluntarily, are eligible to return to extended foster care until they reach age 21. This bill permits a youth who achieved permanency through adoption or guardianship to return to extended foster care if their nonrelated guardian, relative legal guardian or adoptive parent dies before the youth turns 21 years of age. Additionally, probation foster youth who turn 18 while serving their probation are also eligible for extended foster care, subject to the requirements of the program. Existing law specifies numerous placement types for NMDs, however, it did not make similar statutory changes for probation youth. This has meant that probation departments have faced difficulty placing youth in otherwise appropriate placements such as group homes, licensed family homes, transitional living programs that are available to other NMDs. Prior Legislation AB 12 (Beall and Bass, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010) established the California Fostering Connections to Success Act, which extended transitional foster care services to eligible youth between ages 18 and 21 and required California to seek federal financial participation for Kin-GAP. AB 212 (Beall, Chapter 459, Statutes of 2011) made technical and clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. AB 1712 (Beall, Chapter 846, Statutes of 2012) made technical and clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: Potential minor state costs for extended foster care and adoption assistance benefits for former NMDs whose guardian, relative, or adoptive parent passed away prior to the NMD's CONTINUED AB 787 Page 5 21st birthday. Annual costs in the range of $12,000 to $36,000 (General Fund) per case, depending on the placement type. Potentially significant ongoing state costs in the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars (General Fund) for NMDs placed by probation officers into approved placements not currently authorized under existing law. Increased county administrative costs of about $35,000 (General Fund) per year for county assessments conducted 90 days prior to a youth's 18th birthday. This estimate assumes a 45-minute assessment at a cost of $57 per youth for 600 youth turning 18 per year. Ongoing county cost savings of $2.3 million (2011 Local Revenue Fund) for the removal of case management requirements for NMD placements with Non Related Legal Guardians. This estimate assumes an average of 425 NMDs would not require case management services costs of $450 per case per month. SUPPORT : (Verified 9/9/13) Alliance for Children's Rights (co-source) California Alliance of Child and Family Services (co-source) California Welfare Directors Association (co-source) Children's Law Center of California (co-source) Judicial Council of California (co-source) AFSCME, AFL-CIO Alliance for Children's Rights ASPIRAnet California Coalition for Youth California Police Chiefs Association Juvenile Court Judges of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author: In 2010 the state adopted AB 12 (Beall/Bass, Chapter 559) which opted California into two provisions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351). This landmark child welfare legislation was substantial, amounting to 207 pages at the time of adoption. Due to the complexity and fundamental improvements this act CONTINUED AB 787 Page 6 made to the state's welfare system, follow up legislation has been needed since its adoption to help ensure its successful implementation. Since its passage, the Legislature has passed and the state has adopted two successive measures to this effect; AB 212 (Beall, Chapter 459) from 2011 and AB 1712 (Beall, Chapter 846) from 2012. Like its predecessors, this bill will continue the Legislature's efforts to ensure that California's child welfare system can continue to enhance and provide necessary and integral support services to foster youth. ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 70-0, 5/16/13 AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Blumenfield, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chesbro, Conway, Cooley, Dahle, Daly, Dickinson, Donnelly, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Roger Hernández, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Logue, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mansoor, Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Olsen, Pan, Patterson, Perea, V. Manuel Pérez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas, Skinner, Ting, Torres, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wieckowski, Wilk, Williams, Yamada, John A. Pérez NO VOTE RECORDED: Allen, Buchanan, Eggman, Beth Gaines, Grove, Holden, Melendez, Morrell, Stone, Vacancy JL:ej 9/9/13 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END **** CONTINUED