BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1876
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2006
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Noreen Evans, Chair
AB 1876 (Leslie) - As Amended: March 27, 2006
SUBJECT : Placer County pilot program for at-risk foster youth.
SUMMARY : This bill creates a pilot program to promote the use
of faith-based institutions to increase permanency solutions for
at-risk foster youth. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations with regard to
African-American foster youth.
2)Instructs the Placer County Department of Health and Human
Services to contact all faith-based institutions and other
appropriate nonprofit organizations within the county and work
with those entities to identify those willing to create
permanency solution efforts for at-risk foster youth.
3)Requires identification of a liaison at each participating
organization, and requires that the liaison establish a
support network for relatives of at-risk foster youth eligible
for permanency and administer a recruitment program for
non-relatives who can provide the youth with guardianship,
lifelong connections or adoption.
4)Defines at-risk foster youth as African-American foster youth,
disabled foster youth, sibling groups of three or more foster
youth, foster youth over the age of 13 years of age and others
as determined by the county.
5)Prioritizes African-American foster youth as those that should
be first served by this program.
6)Allows that a foster youth who has been placed in Placer
County in an out-of-county placement and who satisfies the
pilot program's eligibility requirements may participate in
the pilot program if Placer County obtains written consent
from the county of residence and participation in the pilot
program is consistent with the foster youth's individual plan.
7)Requires Placer County to submit a report by December 31, 2008
evaluating the pilot. The final report is submitted to the
AB 1876
Page 2
appropriate committees of the Legislature, the state
Department of Social Services (DSS) and other county
departments of human services.
8)Appropriates $100,000 GF dollars to DSS to be allocated to the
Placer County Department of Health and Human Services for the
2007-08 fiscal year for the purpose of implementing the pilot
program as described in the bill.
9)Specifies that the chapter shall become inoperative on July 1,
2008 and as of January 1, 2009 be repealed unless the deadline
is extended by statute.
10)Specifies that Placer County in implementing the pilot
program, shall not provide funds directly to any faith-based
institution or non-profit organization.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides for out-of-home foster care for children removed from
the physical custody of their parents, and funds foster care
through a combination of federal, state and local dollars.
2)Requires the state Department of Social Services to provide
oversight for the county-administered foster care system.
3)Created the Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability System
to measure outcomes-based indicators and collect data on
foster care and child welfare services for each county in
California.
FISCAL EFFECT : The bill requests a general fund appropriation
of $100,000 to fund this pilot.
COMMENTS : The author notes that "(e)very year in California,
thousands of foster clients remain in the state system without a
permanent living solution." He further notes that "(t)his pilot
would test a national model in California of utilizing
institutions of faith as a resource [to] achieve permanency
solutions."
In 2001, the Legislature passed AB 636 (Steinberg) Chapter 678,
Statutes of 2001. This measure established the Child Welfare
Outcomes and Accountability System which measures outcome-based
indicators for each county, including the measures used in the
AB 1876
Page 3
federal Child and Family Service Review (CFSR). Counties, in
collaboration with other local agencies and their communities,
were required to formulate a County System Improvement Plan
(SIP) which outlined program priorities, defined strategies and
steps to achieve improvement and set quantitative measurements
of success.
In 2002 California, along with nine other states, failed all
seven safety, well-being and permanency outcomes in the federal
CFSR. States failing to meet their goals were required to
develop and implement a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) or
face federal fiscal penalties. Rather than be immediately
penalized for failing to meet their outcomes and measurements,
California and other states have been given an opportunity to
submit these plans for improvement, and meet specific benchmarks
toward success before penalties are assessed.
Recent statewide data collected through the AB 636 process shows
that African-American children are more likely to enter foster
care than any other ethnic group in the state. In addition,
African-American children stay in care longer than other foster
children and are less likely to be reunified with their
families.
Issues and Questions. According to the Placer County Economic
and Demographic Profile of 2005 African-Americans make up only
.6% of the county population compared to 7.0% statewide. The UC
Berkeley-published CWS/CMS data shows that in 2005 there were 12
African-American children in foster care in Placer County as
compared to 13 Native American children, 62 Latino children and
243 White children.
Targeting $100,000 to coordinate services for 12 foster youth
may be a laudable goal but in a time of limited resources, can
the State use those funds to improve the lives of more children?
Further, does Placer County provide enough ethnic diversity,
specifically enough African-American foster youth, to make their
findings statistically significant for statewide replication?
While the language of the bill specifies that African-American
foster youth are to be first served under this program, and
further specifies that the objectives of this pilot be achieved
without violation of existing nondiscrimination laws and
policies, it giving foster youth priority according to race may
raise questions under Proposition 209. Proposition 209 was a
AB 1876
Page 4
1996 California ballot proposition which added Section 31 to
Article 1 of the state Constitution to prohibit public
institutions from discriminating against or granting
preferencial treatment to any individual or group on the basis
of race, sex, color, ehtnicity or national origin in public
education, employment and contracting.
Currently all 58 counties have the authority to contact
faith-based and nonprofit organizations to request that they
provide a liaison to the county or provide services to create
permanency solution efforts for at-risk foster youth. Is
legislation necessary for Placer County to implement this
program? And, provided the county agrees to institute such a
program, is it probable that they will begin, complete and
report on a program of this magnitude within 18 months?
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
Concerned Women for America of CA
Koinonia Foster Homes, Inc.
Placer County Board of supervisors
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Caitlin O'Halloran / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089