BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 854
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Weber |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |July 9, 2015 Hearing |
| |Date July 15, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Lynn Lorber |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Educational services: pupils in foster care
SUMMARY
This bill restructures the existing Foster Youth Services
program by shifting the primary function from direct services
provided by county offices of education and six school
districts, to a program of coordination to assist school
districts in meeting their statutory obligation to improve the
educational outcomes of foster youth pursuant to the Local
Control Funding Formula.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
1)Provides funding for the instruction, counseling, tutoring and
related services for foster youth to the following unified
school districts and consortia that have successfully operated
foster youth services program sites: Elk Grove, Mount Diablo,
Sacramento City, San Juan, and Paramount, and the
Placer-Nevada consortium. (Education Code § 42920)
2)Authorizes any county office of education, or consortium of
county offices of education, (in addition to the six program
sites listed above) to apply to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction for grant funding to operate an education-based
foster youth services (FYS) program to provide educational and
support services for foster youth who reside in a licensed
foster home or county-operated juvenile detention facility. A
AB 854 (Weber) Page 2
of ?
FYS program is authorized to prescribe the methodology for
determining which youth may be served, including serving
specific age groups, serving youth in specific geographic
areas with the highest concentration of foster youth, or
serving the youth with the greatest academic need. (EC §
42921)
3)Requires each FYS program to have at least one person
identified as the foster youth educational services
coordinator, who is to facilitate the provision of educational
services to any foster child in the county who is under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court who is placed in a licensed
foster home or county-operated juvenile detention facility.
Existing law requires the responsibilities of the foster youth
educational services coordinator to include all of the
following:
a) Working with the child welfare agency to minimize
changes in school placement.
b) Facilitating the prompt transfer of educational records
between educational institutions when placement changes are
necessary.
c) Providing education-related information to the child
welfare agency to assist the child welfare agency to
deliver services to foster children, including educational
status and progress information required for inclusion in
court reports.
d) Responding to requests from the juvenile court for
information and working with the court to ensure the
delivery or coordination of necessary educational services.
e) Working to obtain and identify, and link children to,
mentoring, tutoring, vocational training, and other
services designed to enhance the educational prospects of
foster youth.
f) Facilitating communication between the foster care
provider, the teacher, and any other school staff or
education service providers for the youth.
g) Sharing information with the foster care provider
AB 854 (Weber) Page 3
of ?
regarding available training programs that address
education issues for children in foster care.
h) Referring caregivers of foster youth who have special
education needs to special education programs and services.
(EC § 42921)
4)Requires each school district operating a foster youth
services (FYS) program to report, by January 1 of
even-numbered years, to the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (SPI) any information required by the SPI.
Existing law requires the SPI to report, by February 15 of
even-numbered years, to the Legislature and Governor on the
FYS program, including:
a) Recommendations regarding the continuation of services.
b) Recommendations regarding the effectiveness of the
services.
c) Recommendations regarding the broadening of the
application of those services.
d) Information which shall be sufficient to determine, at a
minimum, whether these services have resulted in a major
quantitative improvement or deterioration in any of the
following indicators:
i) Student academic achievement.
ii) The incidence of student discipline problems or
juvenile delinquency.
iii) Student dropout rates or truancy rates.
a) A discussion of the meaning and implications of the
indicators listed above.
(EC § 42923)
1)Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to
form an advisory committee to make recommendations regarding
the allocation of available funds to applicant school
districts. (EC § 42925)
AB 854 (Weber) Page 4
of ?
SB 97 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Ch. 11, 2015)
among other things, appropriates $25,379,000 to fund foster
youth services pursuant to legislation enacted in 2015 that
aligns program requirements to reflect the establishment of the
Local Control Funding Formula.
ANALYSIS
1)Reestablishes the Foster Youth Services (FYS) program as the
Foster Youth Services Coordinating (FYSC) program, beginning
with the 2015-16 fiscal year, administered by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), to provide
supplemental funding to county offices of education or a
consortium of county offices of education. This bill requires
the SPI to be responsible for all of the following:
a) Monitoring implementation of the FYSC program.
b) Facilitating data sharing and reporting necessary to
meet the requirements of this bill.
c) Ensure a county office of education's local control
and accountability plan addresses the needs of foster
youth, pursuant to existing law.
2)Authorizes the SPI to use up to 5% of funding allocated for the
FYSC program to contract with a local educational agency to
administer the FYSC program, including providing technical
assistance to county offices of education or consortiums of
county offices of education in the implementation of the FYSC
program.
3)Conditions the operation of the FYSC program with the provision
of funding for this purpose in the annual Budget Act or
another enacted statute.
4)Strikes reference to the six "core" school districts that have
administered and received funds for the prior FYS program,
thereby deleting the existing authority for these school
districts to directly receive funding for the FYSC program.
5)Expands the revamped FYSC program to extend eligibility to all
foster youth, including those placed in kinship care, by
aligning the definition of "foster youth" for purposes of the
AB 854 (Weber) Page 5
of ?
FYSC program with the definition of "foster youth" for
purposes of the Local Control Funding Formula.
Role of county offices of education
6)Requires, beginning with the 2015-16 fiscal year, a county office
of education or consortium of county offices of education that
receives FYCS funds to coordinate with school districts within
its jurisdiction and ensure those districts are providing
services to foster youth as specified in the county's foster
youth services coordinating plan (see comment # 9) with the
purpose of ensuring positive educational outcomes.
7)Requires a county office of education, or a consortium of county
offices of education, receiving FYCS funds and the school
districts within the county to coordinate services to ensure
that for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years, the level of
direct services provided to support foster youth is not less
than what was provided in the 2014-15 fiscal year through the
prior Foster Youth Services (FYS) program. This bill
authorizes, to meet this requirement, services to be provided
through one or any combination of state funds, including the
Local Control Funding Formula, federal, local, or other funds.
8)Requires each county office of education with a Foster Youth
Services Coordinating (FYSC) program, to the extent possible,
to develop and enter into a memorandum of understanding,
contract, or formal agreement with the county child welfare
agency to leverage federal funds and any other funds that may
be used to specifically address the educational needs of
students in foster care, or explain annually in writing why a
memorandum of understanding is not practical or feasible.
This bill encourages each FYCS program to consider leveraging
other local funding opportunities to support the educational
success of students in foster care.
9)Requires, as a condition of receiving FYCS program funds, a
county office of education, or a consortium of county offices
of education, to develop and implement a foster youth services
coordinating plan for the purpose of establishing guiding
principles and protocols to provide supports for foster youth
that are aligned with the established priorities (see #23).
AB 854 (Weber) Page 6
of ?
The plan must include, to the extent possible, the
establishment of on-going collaboration with local education
agencies, county child welfare agencies, and county probation
departments to determine the proper educational placement of
the foster youth. This includes but is not limited to the
following:
a) Building the capacity of county agencies, school
districts and community organizations to better support the
educational success of students in foster care.
b) Facilitating collaboration between county agencies,
school districts and community organizations to ensure
coordinated and non-duplicative service delivery and to
ensure students in foster care receive the educational
supports and services they need to succeed in school.
c) Providing services and educational case management in
support of individual students in foster care, as
necessary.
d) A description of how the program will facilitate
coordination with local postsecondary educational
institutions, including the University of California,
California State University and California Community
Colleges, to ensure foster youth meet admission
requirements and access programs that support their
matriculation needs.
e) Policies and procedures for school districts, county
welfare agencies and county probation departments to share
all relevant educational information for foster youth to
ensure the court has updated and accurate information as it
makes decisions regarding foster youth.
10)States legislative intent that a county office of education, in
the development and adoption of its local control and
accountability plan, include information specific to the
transition from the prior Foster Youth Services (FYS) program
(where six school districts were directly funded), when
describing the coordination of services for foster youth as
currently required for the local control and accountability
plan.
AB 854 (Weber) Page 7
of ?
Role of school districts and other local agencies
11)Requires a school district, county child welfare agency, or
county probation department, if it determines that it is
unable to provide services identified by the school district,
to annually certify in writing to the Foster Youth Services
Coordinating (FYSC) program and to the California Department
of Education the reasons why it is unable to provide the
services. The certification must include reasons why state,
local, federal or private funds are unavailable for support of
those services.
12)Requires a school district to provide a description (as part of
the written certification) of how foster youth will receive
services, if the school district, county child welfare agency
or county probation department certifies that it is unable to
provide services that are established as needed and identified
by the school district.
13)States legislative intent that school districts include
information specific to the transition requirement for the
2015-16 and 2016-17 fiscal years (see #7) in their local
control and accountability plan when describing services for
foster youth.
Educational placement
14)Requires the primary goal of the collaboration to be to minimize
changes in school placement and to support the placement of
foster youth in regular public schools (rather than in
alternative educational settings).
15)Requires a school district, if it is in the best interests of a
foster youth, to ensure transfers are done at an educationally
appropriate time, educational records are quickly transferred,
appropriate partial credits are awarded, and the foster youth
is quickly enrolled in appropriate classes.
16)Requires a county office of education to establish policies and
procedures to ensure educational placement for a foster youth
is not delayed, including facilitating the establishment of an
individualized education program if applicable, and the
transfer of records, transcripts and other relevant
educational information.
AB 854 (Weber) Page 8
of ?
17)Requires LEAs, county welfare agencies, and county probation
departments, in determining the appropriate educational
placement of a foster youth, to consult with the following
individuals as appropriate: an educational rights holder,
caregiver, social worker, teacher, counselor, court-appointed
special advocate, other stakeholders and the student. This
bill provides that the purpose of the consultation is to
ensure all educational programmatic options are considered,
including English learner programs, special education,
advanced placement, and career technical education.
18)Authorizes Foster Youth Services Coordinating (FYSC) to pay for
the cost of transportation to support the existing requirement
that foster youth be allowed to remain in their school of
origin.
Coordination and oversight
19)Requires each FYSC program to establish a local interagency
Executive Advisory Council, and requires the council to
include representatives from the county child welfare agency,
the county probation department, local educational agencies,
local postsecondary educational institutions, and community
organizations. The foster youth educational services
coordinator is to be a permanent member of the council. This
bill authorizes the Executive Advisory Council to include, if
possible, foster youth, caregivers, educational rights
holders, dependency attorneys, court representatives,
court-appointed special advocates, and other interested
stakeholders.
20)Requires the Executive Advisory Council to regularly review the
recommendations of the foster youth services plan, and
authorizes a member of the Executive Advisory Council or the
foster youth educational services coordinator to request the
Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to mediate a
solution in the event of a disagreement.
21)Encourages a FYSC program to first provide services to students
in foster care who reside in a group home, institutional
setting, or other placement with students with high academic
needs, as determined by the local Executive Advisory Council.
AB 854 (Weber) Page 9
of ?
22)Deletes the existing requirement that the SPI form an advisory
committee to make recommendations regarding the allocation of
funding to school districts.
Miscellaneous
23)Requires that priority be given to foster youth who are living
in and out of home placements.
24)Specifies that the report that is currently required to be
provided to the Legislature is to be provided to the
appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature,
expands recommendations to include those regarding the
effectiveness of the program, and modifies outcome data as
follows:
a) Deletes information which shall be sufficient to
determine, at a minimum, whether these services have
resulted in a major quantitative improvement or
deterioration in student academic achievement, the
incidence of student discipline problems or juvenile
delinquency, and student dropout or truancy rates.
b) Adds, to the extent possible, aggregate educational
outcome data for each county in which there were at least
15 students in foster care, with information on each of the
following indicators:
i) The number of students in foster care who
attended school in the county.
ii) The academic achievement of the students in
foster care, as determined by quantitative and
qualitative data currently collected by program
participants.
iii) The number of students in foster care who were
suspended or expelled.
iv) The number of students in foster care who were
placed in a juvenile hall, camp, ranch, or other
county-operated juvenile detention facility because of an
AB 854 (Weber) Page 10
of ?
incident of juvenile delinquency.
v) The truancy rates, attendance rates, and
dropout rates for students in foster care.
vi) The number of students in foster care
participating in foster youth services programs who
successfully transition to postsecondary education. This
bill requires the California Department of Education to
collaborate with the Chancellor of the California
Community Colleges and the Chancellor of the California
State University to identify indicators that can be used
to track access to postsecondary education for students
in foster care.
c) Adds information about how the program has supported
the development and implementation of new local educational
agency and county agency policies, practices and programs
aimed at improving the educational outcomes of students in
foster care.
d) Adds information about how the program has improved
coordination of services between local educational agencies
and county agencies, including the types of services
provided to foster youth.
25)Deletes all specified responsibilities of the local educational
agency foster youth educational services coordinator, and
instead places the responsibility for meeting the requirements
of this bill with county offices of education operating a
foster youth services coordinating program.
26)States legislative intent to establish criteria to determine the
allocation of funds to foster youth services coordinating
programs, including criteria that allows for school districts
to receive funding for this program.
27)States legislative findings and declarations relative to the
educational needs of students who are in foster care and the
benefits of interagency collaboration.
STAFF COMMENTS
1)Need for the bill. According to the author, "Because Foster
AB 854 (Weber) Page 11
of ?
Youth Services (FYS) programs are not authorized or funded to
serve foster youth in relative foster care settings, an
estimated 67% of California's foster youth are not eligible to
receive FYS support that has been proven to increase the
educational success of students in foster care. This bill
will refocus foster youth service programs such that county
offices of education better support the effective
implementation of local control funding formula requirements
for foster youth; support school districts in developing and
implementing the portion of their local control and
accountability plan describing the specific actions and
strategies the school district will undertake to increase the
academic performance of students in foster care, and
facilitate collaboration between school districts and the
county agencies collectively responsible for the educational
success of students in foster care. Having developed deep
expertise in foster youth education issues, the FYS programs
are uniquely well positioned to play this role."
2)Consistent with the Budget. SB 97 (Committee on Budget and
Fiscal Review, Ch. 11, 2015) among other things, appropriates
$25,379,000 to fund foster youth services pursuant to
legislation enacted in 2015 that aligns program requirements
to reflect the establishment of the Local Control Funding
Formula. AB 854 is the legislation that modifies foster youth
services program requirements to reflect the Local Control
Funding Formula and associated responsibilities of school
districts to directly provide services to foster youth.
To ensure consistency with the intent of SB 97, and specific
language agreed upon by the Administration, staff recommends
the following amendments:
a) Modify the entity to whom county child welfare agencies,
county probation departments or local educational agencies
are to provide certification the reasons why it is unable
to provide specified services, from the foster youth
services coordinating program to the governing board of the
local educational agency in which the foster youth attends
school. (On page 15, lines 39-40)
b) Strike reference to mediation by the Superintendent of
Public Instruction (SPI) in the event of a disagreement
within the Executive Advisory Council regarding
AB 854 (Weber) Page 12
of ?
recommendations in the foster youth services coordinating
plan. (On page 17, lines 24-27)
c) Add "Services" on page 18, line 30-31, to read "Foster
Youth Services Coordinating Program."
d) Require, rather than authorize, the Superintendent of
Public Instruction to use up to 5% of the allocated funding
for administrative costs. This ensures the costs to
administer the foster youth services coordinating program
are covered, rather than risking the chance of future
requests for additional administrative funding. (On page
21, line 28)
3)Local Control Funding Formula and foster youth. AB 97
(Committee on Budget, Ch. 47, Statutes of 2013) established
the local control funding formula and provides local
educational agencies with additional funding to serve foster
youth. Local educational agencies are required to identify
ways in which they will improve the
educational outcomes of foster youth in their local control
and accountability plans (LCAPs). Three recent reports have
examined the district LCAP goals and strategies to support
foster youth:
a) A 2015 report commissioned by the National Youth Law Center
and conducted by SRI, International noted that while the
local control funding formula (LCFF) "has begun to shine a
bright light on the needs of foster youth," problems
persist in the areas of data sharing, the shortage of
educational rights holders, and compliance with the law
regarding records transfer and school enrollment, among
others. The report found that "on balance, initial LCAPs
did not recognize the needs of foster youth."
b) A 2015 report from Public Counsel, which focused on school
climate and foster youth as reflected in LCAPs, found that
"districts have fallen short of collecting and analyzing
baseline data, and incorporating in their LCAPs specific
interventions to improve school climate for foster youth"
and that "few school districts identified unique
attendance-related goals or actions for foster youth."
AB 854 (Weber) Page 13
of ?
c) A 2014 report by The Education Trust-West on the first year
of LCFF implementation found that "most districts do not
directly and distinctly address the needs of foster youth
in their first-year LCAPs, apart from saying they will
receive the same services as all students." One section of
that report written by FosterEd (an initiative of the
National Center for Youth Law,) reports that "the vast
majority of district LCAPs [of the 10 districts with the
largest enrollment of foster youth] do not include the
unique interventions and infrastructure elements critical
to help foster youth. However, a few districts - both
large and small - have well-developed and promising plans
for closing the foster youth achievement gap. Los Angeles
Unified School District's (LAUSD) plan is particularly
noteworthy for the large district investment in foster
youth. LAUSD has allocated $9.9 million to hire 75 foster
youth counselors and school social workers specifically
responsible for identifying the student's educational
strengths and needs in addition to monitoring educational
progress."
4)Fiscal impact. This bill was recently amended; a fiscal
analysis is not yet available for the current version of this
bill. According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee's
analysis of the prior version of this bill:
a) Ongoing Proposition 98/General Fund cost pressures of
approximately $20 to $30 million to expand the Foster Youth
Services (FYS) program. For several years, the existing
FYS program has received $15.2 million (Proposition
98/General Fund) to serve approximately one-third of foster
youth in California. This bill expands services to the
remaining two-thirds (approximately 40,000 foster youth)
but does not provide additional funding. It is estimated
that the costs to fully fund the program to provide the
same level of services for all foster youth is
approximately $35 million to $45 million.
b) Ongoing General Fund administrative costs, in the range of
$300,000, to provide technical assistance to coordinate
resources; collect, manage and report data and other
program oversight requirements.
AB 854 (Weber) Page 14
of ?
5)Related and prior legislation.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 379 (Gordon, 2015) expands the Uniform Complaint Procedures
to include complaints of non-compliance with certain rights
and responsibilities regarding the education of students who
are in foster care or who are homeless, including school
placement decisions, responsibilities of foster youth
liaisons, provisions regarding school transfers, exemption
from locally-imposed graduation requirements, and the awarding
of partial credit for completed coursework. AB 379 is pending
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 224 (Jones-Sawyer, 2015) requires the California Department
of Education to develop a standardized notice of educational
rights of foster youth, post the notice on its website, and
provide the notice to foster youth liaisons, foster youth,
parents or educational rights holders. AB 224 is pending in
the Senate Appropriations Committee.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
SB 933 (Thompson, Ch. 311, 1998) expanded the FYS program
statewide through county offices of education, and targeted
funding to students residing in licensed children's
institutions.
AB 1808 (Steinberg, Ch. 75, 2006) expanded the FYS program to
serve youth in foster family homes, foster family agencies,
and juvenile detention facilities.
AB 2489 (Leno, 2006) expanded the FYS program by establishing
the Foster Youth Higher Education Preparation and Support Act.
AB 2489 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SUPPORT
Alliance for Children's Rights
California Peace Alliance
CASA of Santa Cruz County
Equality California
Humboldt County Office of Education
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
AB 854 (Weber) Page 15
of ?
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles County Office of Education
National Center for Youth Law
OPPOSITION
None received.
-- END --