BILL ANALYSIS
AB 295
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 295 (Ammiano)
As Amended June 1, 2009
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 6-0 APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Beall, Ammiano, Tom |Ayes:|De Leon, Nielsen, |
| |Berryhill, Logue, | |Ammiano, |
| |Portantino, Torres | |Charles Calderon, Davis, |
| | | |Duvall, Fuentes, Hall, |
| | | |Harkey, Miller, |
| | | |John A. Perez, Price, |
| | | |Skinner, Solorio, Audra |
| | | |Strickland, Torlakson, |
| | | |Krekorian |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Removes all references to "pilot project" status of
wrap-around services and extends the timeframe for expenditures
and reporting in a pilot program that focuses on preadoption and
postadoption services. Specifically, this bill :
1)Strikes all references to the provision of wrap-around
services as "pilot projects," and replaces them with the
designation of "wrap-around services program."
2)Extends the availability of funds for a specified preadoption
and postadoption services project until June 30, 2010 and
changes the date to May 31, 2011 that information on the
results of the project must be provided to the Legislature by
the Department of Social Services (department).
3)Provides that a child who is categorically eligible for
Medi-Cal benefits with no share of cost based on the receipt
of Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care
(AFDC-FC) or Adoption Assistance benefits remains eligible for
Medi-Cal for the time specified in the child's individualized
services plan.
4)Provides that placement of a child in his or her parental home
is not a change in foster care status for purposes of Medi-Cal
AB 295
Page 2
eligibility for the duration of the child's individualized
services plan and that Medi-Cal eligibility shall not be
redetermined when the child is returned to the parental home
based on his or her individualized services plan.
5)Makes other technical, non-substantive changes to related
provisions.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Establishes the intent of the Legislature that all counties be
authorized to provide children with alternatives to group
homes through development of family-based services programs,
including "wrap-around" services that build on the strengths
of the child and family and are tailored to their unique
needs. Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) Section 18250.
Allows each county, at its option, to develop a plan, as
specified, to provide wrap-around services as a pilot project.
WIC Section 18252.
2)Defines children eligible for wrap-around services to include
dependents, wards or children voluntarily placed into foster
or out-of-home care who are or would be placed in a group home
at a rate classification level of 10 or higher and establishes
reimbursement rates for wrap-around services. WIC Sections
18251, 18524.
3)Requires each county providing wrap-around services to
evaluate its pilot project and prepare interim and final
evaluations to share with the Legislature and Department of
Social Services (DSS) at specified times. WIC Section 18256.
4)Creates a pilot project in four counties (Los Angeles, San
Francisco and two others) and one state district office to
provide preadoption and postadoption services to children who
have been in foster care at least 18 months, are at least nine
years old and are living in foster care with non-relatives or
in a group home. Defines these services to include
recruitment efforts, behavioral health services, peer support
groups, training, mediation and other services, including any
services or supports necessary to resolve a barrier to
adoption. WIC Section 16124.
5)Specifies the amount or proportion of funding to be provided
AB 295
Page 3
to each participating entity and that those funds shall be
available for expenditure for three years. Requires the
Department of Social Services (Department) to analyze the
effects of the project and provide information on its results
by November 30, 2010. Id.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, estimates suggest that at as of December 31, 2009,
$1.3 million in General Fund will remain unspent in the adoption
services pilot project. Without the extension of the project
those funds could be returned to the General Fund.
COMMENTS : Wrap-around in California: This bill would eliminate
the designation of wrap-around as a "pilot project."
"Wrap-around" refers to a program that provides comprehensive
social and other services that are "wrapped around" a child and
family. California's program was developed to support the
placement of children in family-based settings, rather than
group homes or institutional settings. Children are eligible
for a period determined by an individualized services plan if
they have been adjudicated as a dependent or ward and would be
placed in a group home with a Rate Classification Level (RCL) of
10 or higher, or if they would be voluntarily placed in
out-of-home care through the special education system.
Anecdotal support for the success of wrap-around programs is
generally very strong. According to the California Evidenced
Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare Services, the documented
evidence base for wrap-round's success is "promising". By law,
wrap-around services must be cost-neutral to the state.
Although statutes still reference wrap-around as a "pilot,"
there are at least 39 counties currently participating in the
program. According to the Department, most counties' programs
are led by community-based agencies. Based on county reports to
the Department, there were around 3,000 children statewide
served by wrap-around (with nearly half in Los Angeles) in July,
2008. By sometime in 2009 or 2010, the Child Welfare
Services/Case Management System's online database should include
more reliable data on wrap-around participants.
The history of wrap-around in CA includes the following
milestones :
1)AB 2297 (Cunneen) Chapter 274, Statutes of 1996 first
AB 295
Page 4
authorized a pilot wrap-around program in Santa Clara County.
2)SB 163 (Solis) Chapter 795, Statutes of 1997 opened up
wrap-around to all counties, using state and county Aid to
Families with Dependent Children -Foster Care (AFDC-FC) funds
to serve children who would otherwise live in group homes with
a Rate Classification Level (RCL) of 12-14.
3)AB 2706 (Cunneen) Chapter 259, Statutes of 2000 extended
wrap-around to children in lower-level group homes of RCL
10-11 or at risk of placement at that level. AB 2706 also
created eligibility for children served by the Adoption
Assistance Program or placements through the special education
system. In 2001, AB 429 (Aroner) Chapter 111, Statutes of
2001; (Social services budget trailer bill) removed the sunset
for the SB 163-created pilot statutes.
4)In 2002, the Katie A. v. Bonta lawsuit was filed against the
Departments of Social Services and Health Care Services. The
suit seeks to expand wrap-around and therapeutic foster care
to dependents and children at risk of becoming dependents.
There is not yet a final statewide resolution, but Los Angeles
County has separately settled with the plaintiffs.
5)Effective in 2005, Section 10 of Proposition 63, the Mental
Health Services Act (MHSA), created a requirement that each
county mental health program submit a 3-year plan that
includes a wrap-around program for children-unless the county
provides substantial evidence that it is not feasible. WIC
5847.
Preadoption and postadoption services pilot : This bill would
also extend by one year the time allowed for expenditure of
funds for, and by six months the required reporting about, an
adoption services-related pilot project. The 3-year pilot was
created by AB 1808, Chapter 75, Statutes of 2006, a budget
trailer bill related to human services. The focus of the pilot
is support for adoptions of foster children ages 9 and older who
have been in foster care at least 18 months and live with foster
families who are not related to them or in group homes. The
participating counties are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Alameda
and Kern, along with the department's Adoptions District Office
in Sacramento. According to the author, the delay in the
AB 295
Page 5
initial implementation of the pilot projects was at least in
part due to a delay in the initial disbursement of funding by
the state to the counties at the outset of the projects.
Analysis Prepared by : Eric Gelber / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089
FN: 0001342