BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 12
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 12
(Beall) - As Amended June 2, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Human Services |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |10 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY: This bill expands eligibility for extended foster care
to specified nonminors who have crossed over from the dependency
system to the delinquency system. Specifically, this bill:
1)Permits a nonminor between the ages of 18 and 21 to petition
SB 12
Page 2
the court to resume dependency jurisdiction or assume
transition jurisdiction over him or her, provided the youth:
a) Has been adjudged a ward of the court;
b) Was subject to an order for foster care placement at the
time the petition to adjudge him or her a ward of the court
was filed; and
c) Was held in secure confinement at 18 years of age.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potentially significant ongoing annual costs of approximately
$550,000 (GF/Federal Fund) to provide extended foster care
benefits to for up to three years to additional probation
youth between the ages of 18 and 21 who are in secure
confinement on their 18th birthday. A portion of these costs
could be eligible for federal reimbursement to the extent the
State submits an amendment to its Title IV-E state plan that
is approved.
2)Potentially significant increase in non-reimbursable
(Proposition 30) local probation supervision costs in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars (GF) annually to the extent
nonminors provided extended foster care benefits continue
under the supervision of probation departments.
3)Unknown, but potentially significant future cost savings (GF)
to the extent the provision of extended foster care benefits
SB 12
Page 3
to this population of nonminors results in improved long-term
outcomes and reduced future involvement in the criminal
justice system.
4)Potential Proposition 30 implications to the extent this bill
creates a new mandate for counties that must be funded with
General Fund dollars.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. Federal and state actions in recent years to extend
foster care services to nonminors ages 18 to 21 recognized the
need to support youth as they transition from the juvenile
dependency and juvenile delinquency systems to adulthood.
Since the California Fostering Connections to Success Act was
passed in 2010, additional pieces of legislation have been
adopted to further realize the intent of that bill. This bill
seeks to continue this effort with regards to a small
population of crossover youth who were adjudged a ward of the
court and subject to an order for foster care placement at the
time this adjudication took place, but who were held in secure
confinement on their 18th birthday. This last condition -
that a youth was in secure confinement per the juvenile
delinquency system on their 18th birthday - can currently
render him or her ineligible to receive extended foster care
services and benefits, because he or she is typically no
longer subject to an order for a foster care placement on his
or her 18th birthday.
This bill seeks to include this segment of youth in those
eligible for extended foster care benefits.
2)Background. Current law provides opportunities for the court
to resume jurisdiction of a former nonminor dependent or ward
of the court for specified reasons. In these cases, a youth
who was receiving foster care services when they turned 18 may
SB 12
Page 4
opt to re-enter foster care so that he or she may remain in a
healthy and safe environment and draw down services to help
him or her transition into adulthood. In addition, the law
specifically allows a former foster youth, whose adoptive
parent or guardian dies before the youth turns 21, to re-enter
as a nonminor dependent if he or she meets the specified
criteria. Last year, this same opportunity was added for
nonminor dependents who have reached permanency through
permanent guardianship or adoption, but whose adoptive parent
or guardian then fail to provide ongoing support while the
youth is between the age of 18 and 21.
The number of youth that would be impacted by this bill is
assumed to be relatively small. However, data on the exact
number are not readily available due to the multiple factors
that need to be considered in identifying this population.
According to the Department of Social Services, there are
approximately 300 to 400 youth in secure confinement between
the ages of 18 and 20. However, of that number, only those
youth who were in secure confinement on their 18th birthday,
don't live in a dual-jurisdiction county with a protocol that
already makes them eligible for extended foster care, meet all
additional eligibility requirements, and choose to opt into
extended foster care, will be impacted by this bill.
Reasonable estimates suggest this number will be less than 100
youth.
3)Proposition 30. Proposition 30 was passed by the voters in
November 2012, and among other provisions, eliminated any
potential mandate funding liability for any new program or
higher level of service mandated on the counties related to
realigned programs, including child welfare services and
foster care. Rather, 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 only apply to local agencies
SB 12
Page 5
to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the
cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide
programs or levels of service required by legislation above
the level for which funding has been provided.
4)Related Current Legislation. AB 885 (Lopez), 2015, would have
facilitated former foster youth re-entering extended foster
care upon disruption of their permanent relationships. It was
held on this Committee's Suspense File.
5)Prior Legislation.
a) AB 2454 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 769, Statutes of 2014,
authorized former nonminor dependents under the age of 21,
as specified, to petition the court to re-enter foster care
if their guardian or adoptive parent is no longer providing
them with support.
b) AB 787 (Stone), Chapter 487, Statutes of 2013, made
technical and clarifying changes to the California
Fostering Connections to Success Act.
c) AB 1712 (Beall), Chapter 846, Statutes of 2012, made
technical and clarifying changes to the California
Fostering Connections to Success Act.
d) AB 212 (Beall), Chapter 459, Statues of 2011, made
technical and clarifying changes to the California
Fostering Connections to Success Act.
e) AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010, the
"California Fostering Connections to Success Act,"
conformed state law to federal requirements to revise and
expand programs and funding for certain foster and adopted
SB 12
Page 6
children.
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081