BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2015
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2015 (McCarty) - As Amended March 18, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Human Services |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the 2011 child welfare services realignment
report to additionally include: 1) reported expenditures
for counties that are participating in and making claims under
the federal Title IV-E waiver; 2) how waiver counties are
AB 2015
Page 2
maximizing the utilization of funds; and 3) how close counties
are to fund the recommended optimum caseloads, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Unknown, but potentially significant costs (GF*) for counties
to collect, update, compile, and present to the Department of
Social Services (DSS), data necessary for determining caseload
ratios. DSS is still evaluating whether they already have
access to some or all of the necessary data. Thus, it is
unclear to what extent counties will need to be involved in
providing data.
2)Minor and absorbable costs to DSS to incorporate the
additional items into the report.
*Pursuant to Proposition 30 (November 2012) any legislation
enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of
increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for
programs or levels of service mandated by realignment (including
child welfare services and foster care) only apply to local
agencies to the extent that the state provides annual funding
for the cost increase.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, "It has been five years
since realignment and, while there have been some
improvements, there are still areas where counties can vastly
improve in the delivery of care and services to California's
foster youth. This bill will expand existing realignment
reporting requirements by requiring the collection of data
relative to maximization of program funding, social worker
AB 2015
Page 3
caseload ratios and case manager oversight review. This
additional information will further ensure that participating
county program goals are aligned with the State's priorities
under the 2011 realignment."
2)2011 Realignment. Child welfare services in California are
funded through a mix of federal, state, and county dollars.
The Budget Act of 2011 realigned public safety programs from
the state to the local level, moving programs and fiscal
responsibility to local governments. The fiscal
responsibility for the nonfederal share of costs for the child
welfare services system was shifted largely to the counties
with the 2011 realignment. Existing law requires the
Department of Social Services (DSS) to annually report to the
Legislature and post on its website a summary of outcome and
expenditure data that allows for monitoring the changes of the
2011 realignment programs.
This bill would require that report to include additional
items for counties participating in and making claims under
the federal Title IV-E waiver.
3)Title IV-E waiver. The primary dedicated source of federal
funding for child welfare services is "Title IV-E" funding
authorized under the Social Security Act. These funds are
restricted to use for child welfare services administration,
foster care assistance payments, and assistance payments to
caretakers who have adopted or assumed guardianship of foster
children through the Adoption Assistance Program or
Kinship-Guardianship Assistance (Kin-GAP).
The "Title IV-E waiver demonstration project" allows for more
flexible use of Title IV-E funds, which are largely
AB 2015
Page 4
inflexible, including for purposes of investing in ways to
safely reduce the need for foster care. Beginning in 2007,
Los Angeles and Alameda Counties have been part of the waiver
demonstration project. In 2014-15, a waiver extension was
granted to those two counties, and the waiver was expanded to
Butte, Lake, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Clara
and Sonoma counties. All waivers end in 2019. The goal of
the demonstration project, which is operating in 28 states, is
to measure outcomes for youth of more flexible use of federal
funds, aimed at reducing the number of children who enter
foster care and the time spent in foster care.
This bill seeks to include expenditure information for the
counties participating in the waiver for purposes of
evaluation.
4)Prior Legislation.
a) SB 855 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review),
Chapter 29, Statutes of 2014, added the requirement to the
2011 realignment report that, to the extent that the
information is readily or publicly available, the report
also contain the amount of funds each county receives from
the Protective Services Growth Special Account, as
specified, child welfare services social worker caseloads
per county, and the number of authorized positions in the
local child welfare services agency.
b) SB 1020 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review),
Chapter 40, Statutes of 2012, established an overall
financing structure for the 2011 Public Safety Realignment,
creating, among other things, the Protective Services
Growth Special Account within the Support Services Growth
AB 2015
Page 5
Subaccount, which was established by this bill within the
Sales and Use Tax Growth Account of the Local Revenue Fund
2011.
c) SB 2030 (Costa), Chapter 785, Statutes of 1998, required
DSS to secure a contract to evaluate the child welfare
services budget methodology and make recommendations to
revise it, including appropriate caseload levels,
supportive services, and preventative services, in order to
accurately and adequately fund the system. The final report
was released in April 2000; among other things, it
established caseload standards.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081