BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 18, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          AB  
          2597 (Cooley) - As Amended May 11, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Human Services                 |Vote:|7 - 0        |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   
          No


          SUMMARY:  This bill makes various changes to the Resource Family  
          Approval (RFA) process to account for the unique needs of  
          relative caregivers. Specifically, this bill:


          1)Clarifies that a relative who will need to rely on foster care  
            payments to provide for the child's needs, still meets the  
            'financial stability' requirement for RFA. 



          2)Allows child-specific approval for kinship caregivers to  
            enable relatives to care for a child, if it is in the child's  
            best interest, even if the relative is not able or willing to  








                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  2





            be approved as a foster parent for all children. 



          3)Ensures that RFA is aligned with statutory provisions for  
            immediate placement of children with relatives, prior to home  
            approval.



          4)Clarifies that a relative has the permanency option of "fit  
            and willing relative" that should be accounted for during the  
            permanency assessment.


          5)Ensures that each child placed on an emergency basis receives  
            a CalWORKs payment pending the relative's approval as a  
            resource family and that foster care funding (AFDC-FC) starts  
            within 90 days of placement, even if the approval process is  
            not yet completed if the reason for the delay is outside the  
            control of the family.


          FISCAL EFFECT:


          1)Unknown costs, but likely in the low millions of dollars  
            (Federal/GF), for additional CalWORKs payments resulting from  
            making each child placed on an emergency basis his/her own  
            Assistance Unit and allowing the grant to start immediately  
            upon placement.


          2)Unknown costs, but likely in the tens of thousands of dollars  
            (GF), to provide AFDC-FC payments for those placements that  
            are pending RFA approval.  Staff notes that federal funds  
            would not be available since the homes would not be approved.










                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  3





          3)Unknown non reimbursable costs to counties (GF) to complete  
            additional expedited CalWORKs applications and for other  
            administrative adjustments.


          4)The Governor's 2016-17 Budget (including May Revision)  
            includes $182 million ($127 million GF) to continue to  
            implement Continuum of Care Reform (CCR), including all of the  
            provisions of AB 1997 (Stone).  Some of the provisions in this  
            bill are also contained in AB 1997, but others are not and  
            create costs outside of the budget.


          


          COMMENTS:





          1)Purpose. According to the author's office, "Over 30% of foster  
            parents in California are relative caregivers - family members  
            who have stepped up to care for a child related to them.   
            These relative caregivers face challenges that other foster  
            parents do not.  Often, they take the child in first and ask  
            questions later.  Funding and services kick in months after  
            the child is already in the home, after clothing, food,  
            medical care have been provided.  As California moves to the  
            RFA process for foster parents, it is vital that we keep these  
            relative caregivers in mind.  They must be given adequate time  
            to complete training and given the funds needed to help care  
            for the child as soon as possible.  Each of these situations  
            is unique and each child and relative caregiver faces  
            multi-faceted issues.  By ensuring that child-specific  
            approval is allowable under RFA we help the entire foster care  
            system succeed by not shutting out caregivers who are ready,  
            willing, and able to take these children into their homes."








                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  4








          2)Background.  Current law allows children to be placed with  
            relatives (and non-relative extended family members such as  
            neighbors, godparents, etc.) on an emergency basis prior to  
            home approval. This policy protects children from needless  
            trauma by providing a familiar caregiver at a time of crisis  
            and disruption - but it presents unique challenges for  
            relatives, who must complete home approval requirements while  
            they are already caring for traumatized and grieving children.  
            Relatives have not had the luxury of setting aside money and  
            vacation days, modifying their homes to meet licensing  
            standards, finding child care, etc. in advance of placement. 
            


            Last year AB 403 (Stone) was passed to move all foster  
            parents, relative and non-relative, into a Resource Family  
            Approval system that requires new risk assessments,  
            psychosocial assessment processes, and new training  
            requirements. Prior to AB 403, in 2013-14, Resource Family  
            Approval was a pilot program in San Luis Obispo, Kings, Santa  
            Barbara, Santa Clara, counties, and City and County of San  
            Francisco. In 2016, an additional 9 counties volunteered to  
            implement RFA prior to statewide implementation of RFA  
            beginning on January 1, 2017.


          


          3)Resource Family Approval (RFA):  California is starting  
            statewide implementation of a new, unified process of  
            approving foster families - called Resource Family Approval  
            (RFA) -- that will apply to both relative and non-relative  
            foster homes. By 2017, the only way to be approved as a new  
            foster parent will be to go through RFA; families already  
            approved prior to January 2017 will have additional time to  








                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  5





            convert to the new RFA standards.  Relatives will be  
            substantially impacted by implementation of RFA because they  
            will have to go through new risk assessment and psychosocial  
            assessment processes, and meet new training requirements. 



            This bill seeks to take into account the different ways that  
            relatives enter the foster care system. Non-relatives enter  
            the system by deciding to become a foster family, followed by  
            months of training, preparation, home approval, and then  
            matching with a child or children. Relatives, in contrast,  
            typically enter the system in a crisis situation.  The author  
            asserts that the RFA statutes were not designed with the  
            unique circumstances of relative caregivers in mind.


          


          4)Continuum of Care Reform and Related Legislation.  In 2015,  
            Governor Brown signed AB 403 (Stone) which reformed placement  
            and treatment options for youth in foster care.  The bill was  
            sponsored by DSS and was aimed at improving outcomes for youth  
            in foster care. AB 403 included various changes to the RFA  
            program to be enacted beginning January 1, 2016.  AB 1997  
            (Stone), sponsored by DSS and also before this Committee  
            today, adopts clarifying and technical changes to further the  
            implementation of CCR in order to continue the work started  
            with AB 403.  Some of the provisions in this bill are also  
            contained in AB 1997. It is unclear how the changes proposed  
            in this bill impact the ongoing implementation of CCR.  The  
            Committee may wish to consider how to reconcile potentially  
            conflicting bills.



          5)Prior Legislation.









                                                                    AB 2597


                                                                    Page  6







             a)   AB 403 (Stone), Chapter 773, Statutes of 2015,  
               implemented CCR recommendations to better serve children  
               and youth in California's child welfare services system.     




             b)   SB 1013 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter 35,  
               Statutes of 2012, realigned the child welfare services  
               system to counties, established a moratorium on the  
               licensing of new group homes, and required the Department  
               of Social Services to convene a workgroup to discuss and  
               recommend changes to the continuum of care within child  
               welfare services and how to reform the use of congregate  
               care.



          Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081