BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2015
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2015 (McCarty)
As Amended March 18, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Human Services |7-0 |Bonilla, Grove, | |
| | |Calderon, Lopez, | |
| | |Maienschein, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Mark Stone, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |20-0 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, | |
| | |Bloom, Bonilla, | |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, | |
| | |Chang, Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Obernolte, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
AB 2015
Page 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Requires additional information to be included in the
2011 child welfare services realignment report. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Deletes language making the requirement for the annual 2011
realignment report to the Legislature to include information
on fund allocation, social worker caseloads, and authorized
positions, as specified, conditional upon that information
being readily or publically available.
2)Requires the 2011 realignment report to include the following
information:
a) Reported expenditures for counties that are
participating in and making claims under the federal Title
IV-E waiver;
b) How waiver counties are maximizing the utilization of
funds; and
c) How close counties are to funding the recommended
optimum caseloads, as specified.
EXISTING LAW:
1)States Legislative intent to ensure that the impacts of the
2011 realignment of child welfare services, foster care,
adoptions, and adult protective services programs are
identified and evaluated, and that information regarding these
impacts is publicly available and accessible and can be used
to support the state's and counties' effectiveness in
delivering services and supports. (Welfare and Institutions
Code Section (WIC) 10104 (a))
AB 2015
Page 3
2)Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to annually
report to the Legislature and make publicly available, by
April 15, a summary of outcome and expenditure data that
allows for monitoring of changes over time, as specified.
(WIC 10104(b) and (c)(1))
3)Requires the report, to the extent that the information is
readily or publicly available, to also contain information on
Protective Services Growth Special Account allocations across
counties, social worker caseloads, and authorized positions,
as specified. (WIC 10104(c)(2))
4)Provides for the Protective Services Growth Special Account
within the Support Services Growth Subaccount, which is within
the Sales and Use Tax Growth Account of the Local Revenue Fund
2011. (Government Code Section 30025)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill may result in the following costs:
1)Unknown, but potentially significant costs (General Fund*) for
counties to collect, update, compile, and present to 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
AB 2015
Page 4
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:
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.
Title IV-E waiver: While there are several federal funding
sources for child welfare services, the main dedicated source 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).
While Title IV-E funds are rather inflexible, there is a "Title
IV-E waiver demonstration project" allowing for more flexible
use of funds, 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
AB 2015
Page 5
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.
California SB 2030 Study: 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.
Need for this bill: 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
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."
PRIOR LEGISLATION:
SB 855 (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 shall also contain the amount of
funds each county receives from the Protective Services Growth
Special Account, as specified, child welfare services social
AB 2015
Page 6
worker caseloads per county, and the number of authorized
positions in the local child welfare services agency.
SB 1020 (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 Subaccount, which was established by
this bill within the Sales and Use Tax Growth Account of the
Local Revenue Fund 2011.
SB 2030, 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.
Analysis Prepared by:
Daphne Hunt / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN:
0003200