BILL ANALYSIS Ó Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary Senator Kevin de León, Chair AB 1761 (Hall) - Dependent children: placement. Amended: March 28, 2014 Policy Vote: HS 4-0; JUD 7-0 Urgency: No Mandate: Yes Hearing Date: August 4, 2014 Consultant: Jolie Onodera This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File. Bill Summary: AB 1761 would authorize a social worker to place a child who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent in the home of a relative or non-relative extended family member (NREFM) after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing, and requires the county welfare department to initiate an assessment of the relative's or NREFM's suitability, as specfiied. Fiscal Impact: Potentially significant state costs (General Fund*) for county social workers to conduct additional assessments of relatives and NREFMs that have requested placement of a child after the detention hearing and pending a dispositional hearing. Assuming two to four hours per assessment, annual costs to provide assessments for 10 percent of the 8,500 relative placements annually would cost in the range of $125,000 to $250,000 annually. *Proposition 30 (November 2012) specifies that for legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs, including child welfare services, the provisions shall apply to local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Background: Existing law authorizes a peace officer to take a child into temporary custody under certain circumstances, including if he or she has reasonable cause to believe that the child is the victim of abuse or neglect. Under existing law, if the child is not released to his or her parent or guardian, the AB 1761 (Hall) Page 1 juvenile court is required to hold specified hearings to determine whether the child should be adjudged a dependent of the court, including a detention hearing, jurisdictional hearing, and dispositional hearing. Under existing law, if an able and willing relative or NREFM is available and requests temporary placement of the child pending the detention hearing, the county welfare department is required to initiate an assessment of the relative's or NREFM's suitability, as specified. This bill would provide that a social worker is further authorized to temporarily place a child with a relative or NREFM after the detention hearing or pending a dispositional hearing, as specified. Proposed Law: This bill would authorize a social worker to place a child who has been removed from the custody of his or her parent in the home of a relative or NREFM after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing. In addition, this bill: Clarifies legislative intent that a social worker may place a child in the home of an appropriate relative or NREFM pending the consideration of other relatives who request preferential consideration. Recasts the preferential consideration granted to sibling placements to state that placement with siblings and half-siblings shall receive preferential consideration "unless that placement is found to be contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings" instead of "if that placement is found to be in the best interest of each of the children." Related Legislation: AB 2391 (I. Calderon) 2014 would require the county social worker and the court, when determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, to consider specified factors, and would require that consideration for placement with a relative subsequent to a dispositional hearing be given again without regard to whether a new placement of a child must be made. This bill is pending in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Prior Legislation: AB 545 (Mitchell) Chapter 294/2013 expanded the definition of a nonrelative extended family member to include an adult caregiver who has an established familial AB 1761 (Hall) Page 2 relationship with a relative of the child. Staff Comments: By requiring the county welfare department to conduct additional assessments of relatives and NREFMs for potential placement of a child after the detention hearing and pending the dispositional hearing, this bill imposes a state-mandated local program that could require an ongoing subvention of funds from the state pursuant to Proposition 30. For cases in which an assessment was completed for a relative or NREFM that was granted temporary custody of a child pending the detention hearing, and the same relative or NREFM seeks placement of a child pending the dispositional hearing, it is assumed there would be minimal additional costs. However, in cases in which a relative initially had temporary custody prior to the detention hearing and a different relative or NREFM requests temporary custody of the child after the detention hearing pending the dispositional hearing, county welfare departments would be required to conduct a new assessment of the relative/NREFM. It is unknown how many additional assessments would be conducted under the provisions of this measure, but assuming 10 percent of the 8,500 relative placements require an additional assessment lasting two to four hours could cost in the range of $125,000 to $250,000 annually. Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties contributed to the non-federal share of various social service programs. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and ABX1 16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties through the 2011 Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs, including foster care and child welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY 2011-12 and for each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding and expenditures for these activities including child welfare services are funded through the LRF. Proposition 30, passed by the voters in November 2012, among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding liability for any new program or higher level of service provided by counties related to the realigned programs. Although the provisions of this bill are a mandate on social workers, any increased costs would not appear to be subject to reimbursement by the state. Rather, Proposition 30 specifies that for legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for realigned programs, the provisions shall apply to AB 1761 (Hall) Page 3 local agencies only to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. To the extent it is determined that the provisions of this bill impose a higher level of service on local agencies or result in an increase in overall costs already borne by counties for the provision of child welfare services, the state could potentially elect to, but not be required to, provide funding for the cost increase.