BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
SB 528 (Yee) - Minor and nonminor dependent parents: care and
treatment.
Amended: May 13, 2013 Policy Vote: HS 6-0, JUD 6-1, ED
8-0
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 20, 2013 Consultant: Jolie Onodera
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: SB 528 would provide for the following care and
treatment of minor and nonminor dependent parents:
Adds parenting minor and nonminor dependents (foster youth)
to the list of families who are prioritized for subsidized
state child care, as specified.
Requires child welfare agencies to ensure minor and
nonminor dependent parents have access to specially trained
social workers or resource specialists who have received
specialized training on the needs of teenage parents and
available resources, as specified.
Requires child welfare agencies to update case plans for
pregnant and parenting dependents and hold specialized
conferences to assist pregnant and parenting dependents with
planning and identifying resources and services.
Requires social workers to ensure all dependent children
are provided with age-appropriate, medically accurate
information about sexual development, reproductive health,
prevention of unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted
infections on an ongoing basis.
Requires social workers to ensure dependent youth age 12
and older are informed of their right to consent to and
receive those health services, as necessary.
Directs the Department of Social Services (DSS) to collect
and make publicly available, complete and accurate data on
parenting minor and nonminor dependents and their children,
as specified.
Requires child welfare agencies, local educational agencies
(LEAs), and child care resource and referral (R&R) agencies
to make reasonable and coordinated efforts to ensure
dependent parents have access to school programs, as
specified, and that minor dependent parents are given
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 1
priority for subsidized child care.
Fiscal Impact:
Potential minor General Fund (Proposition 98) cost
pressure on existing subsidized state child care demand to
the extent children of minor dependent parents are
prioritized above other children on the waiting list who are
both income eligible and whose parents demonstrate a need
for care. (No impact estimated for nonminor dependent
parents, as these parents are required to participate in
education/work activities and would already be considered a
priority group demonstrating need).
Significant ongoing state costs (General Fund) potentially
in the hundreds of thousands to low millions of dollars for
mandated activities on social workers to update case plans,
provide age-appropriate health information, provide
assistance in accessing resources, hold specialized
conferences, and coordinate efforts with LEAs and child care
R&R agencies.
Significant ongoing costs potentially in the hundreds of
thousands to low millions of dollars (General Fund) for
specialized training for social workers and/or recruitment
of resource specialists. Annual costs would be dependent on
the depth of training and number of social workers and/or
resource specialists required to meet the needs of this
population. Assuming a minimum of one resource specialist
per county at a cost of $50,000 per year would equate to
$2.9 million.
Potential near-term increase in Medi-Cal services costs to
the extent the provisions of this bill result in referrals
for additional health services. Potential future cost
savings to the extent the provision of preventive services
and treatment result in reduced need for additional services
prospectively.
Unknown, one-time significant programming/automation costs
potentially in excess of $1 million (General) to capture
data in CWS/CMS specific to dependent parents, their
children, their age, ethnic group, placement type, and time
in care.
Ongoing moderate mandated data reporting costs (General
Fund) to counties on parenting minor and nonminor dependents
and their children.
Potentially significant mandate on LEAs (General Fund) to
coordinate efforts to ensure minor dependent parents who
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 2
have not completed high school have access to school
programs that provide onsite or coordinated child care, and
are given priority for subsidized child care.
Potential substantial future cost savings to the extent the
provision of coordinated parenting services to foster youth
and earlier provision of information on reproductive health
results in improved care for the children of these
dependents and reduces the rate of unintended pregnancies
and other health-related issues.
Background: The California Fostering Connections to Success Act
(AB 12 (Beall/Bass) Chapter 559/2010), extended foster care
benefits to nonminor dependents between the ages of 18 to 21
subject to specified criteria. As a result, eligible nonminor
foster youth are now able to continue receiving support from the
dependency system as they transition into adulthood. As
California has expanded foster care to serve older youth, the
challenges of parenting youth in the extended foster care
program has led to the identification of reforms needed to
better meet the needs of this population of young parents.
In 2008, Los Angeles County established a project to aid
pregnant and parenting dependents. The Pregnant and Parenting
Teen conference (PPT) is an entirely voluntary program in which
pregnant or parenting dependents are connected with a variety of
resources from the child welfare system as well as other benefit
systems. The PPT is a "team based" approach, where a number of
supportive adults, including the dependent and a resource
specialist or social worker, work to create a plan for the
dependent with a focus on healthy parenting and identifying
appropriate resources. The program has been successful in Los
Angeles, with an estimated 95 percent of eligible youth
participating.
This bill would take a comprehensive approach to addressing many
of the issues which have been identified under California's
expansion of foster care to eligible nonminors.
Proposed Law: See Bill Summary.
Related Legislation: AB 499 (Atkins) Chapter 652/2011 authorized
a minor, who is 12 years of age or older, to consent to medical
care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted
disease.
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 3
SB 543 (Leno) Chapter 503/2010 authorized a minor who is 12
years of age or older to consent to mental health treatment or
counseling, except as specified, on an outpatient basis, or to
residential shelter services, if specified conditions are
satisfied.
SB 244 (Wright) 2009 would have granted priority for eligibility
and enrollment for children of foster youth and adopted children
ages birth to age five if enrolling in a licensed child care
program or one offered by a school district or county office of
education. This bill passed out of Assembly Human Services but
was not heard in Assembly Education Committee.
AB 769 (Torres) 2009 would have extended priority for enrollment
in a state preschool program to children who have a biological
parent under the jurisdiction of the delinquency or dependency
court. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the following
message:
This bill results in significant Proposition 98 General Fund
costs pressures. Absent additional funding to support this
policy shift, enacting this measure would result in denying
access to state funded preschool programs to other low income
families who are currently on waiting lists for subsidized care.
Moreover, children of those under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court system already may access child care on a
priority basis under current law, to the extent that they are at
risk of abuse or neglect. For these reasons, I am unable to sign
this bill.
Staff Comments: Currently, a foster child in foster care age
0-12 is eligible for care based on a child's own income alone
(all are income eligible to receive services), but current law
also requires that the foster parent be participating in a
school or work activity in order to demonstrate a need for child
care. To the extent the income of a parenting foster youth or
nonminor dependent is likely to be minimal, these dependent
parents would be high on the eligibility list to receive
services.
Since nonminor dependents must be engaged in educational or work
activities as a condition of nonminor dependency, no significant
impact is estimated for this group. However, to the extent
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 4
foster youth who are minor parents are deemed eligible and
prioritized for care regardless of having a "need" for care
(participate in a school or work activity), this could create
cost pressure on the existing child care demand, as those
children who are currently on the waiting list who area both
income eligible and demonstrate a need for care could be
displaced by a foster youth who is a parent. To the extent this
is a relatively small population, the impact would not be
significant. Data from 2010 indicate 215 minor dependent
parents. As a result, future cost pressure is projected to be
minor.
This bill mandates substantial new duties on child welfare
agencies and social workers. Although the total number of
parenting foster youth is unknown due to existing data
limitations, it is estimated the population of nonminor
dependents is likely to grow as the provision of extended foster
care to age 21 has yet to be fully implemented. The ongoing
mandated activities on social workers include updating case
plans, providing age-appropriate health information, providing
assistance in accessing resources, holding specialized
conferences, and coordinating efforts with LEAs and child care
R&R agencies. In addition, the provisions of this bill require
minor and nonminor dependent parents to have access to specially
trained social workers or resource specialists. The annual costs
for the provision of training and/or the recruitment of resource
specialists would be dependent on the depth of training required
and number of social workers and/or resource specialists engaged
to meet the needs of this population. In total, the increased
costs of the mandated activities could be significant,
potentially in the millions of dollars (General Fund) annually.
To the extent a minimum of one additional specialist is required
per county, costs for staffing would cost $2.9 million assuming
an annual cost of $50,000 per specialist.
Prior to Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12, the state and counties
contributed to the non-federal share of child welfare services
expenditures. AB 118 (Committee on Budget) Chapter 40/2011 and
ABX1 16 Chapter 13/2011 realigned state funding to the counties
through the Local Revenue Fund (LRF) for various programs,
including child welfare services. As a result, beginning in FY
2011-12 and for each fiscal year thereafter, non-federal funding
and expenditures for child welfare services activities including
monthly visits to foster youth are funded through the Local
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 5
Revenue Fund.
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 create a mandate on local agencies,
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 local agencies only to the extent that the state provides
annual funding for the cost increase.
The codified legislative intent language in this bill would
require the DSS to incur substantial programming costs to
"ensure that complete and accurate data on parenting minor and
nonminor dependents and their children is collected." This bill
requires the DSS to ensure that specified information regarding
minor and nonminor dependent parents and their children is
publicly available on a quarterly basis by county. One-time
costs potentially in excess of $1 million could be incurred to
make the required programming changes to CWS/CMS in order to
effectuate these changes.
Under existing law, school districts are authorized but not
required to operate California School Age Family Education
(Cal-SAFE) programs, comprehensive community-linked school
programs for expectant and parenting students and their
children. Current law authorizes complete flexibility by a
county office of education, school district, and charter school
in the use of funds appropriated for fiscal years through
2014-15.
Thirty-nine counties currently receive Cal-SAFE program funding
($46.4 million statewide). The provision of this bill requiring
all LEAs to coordinate efforts to ensure dependent parents who
have not completed high school have access to school programs
that provide onsite or coordinated child care, could create a
mandate on LEAs to provide these services. As Cal-SAFE is a
flexible categorical program through 2014-15, the $46.4 million
SB 528 (Yee)
Page 6
in funds may be used for any educational purpose, and mandating
the provision of these activities could result in the need to
backfill current expenditures with additional General Fund. For
the remaining counties that do not receive Cal-SAFE funds, the
additional workload would also create a state-reimbursable
mandate on LEAs.
To the extent the provision of coordinated parenting services to
foster youth and earlier provision of information on
reproductive health results in improved care for the children of
these dependents and reduces the rate of unintended pregnancies
and other health-related issues, substantial future cost savings
in the millions of dollars could result.