BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1905|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1905
Author: Cook (R), et al
Amended: 3/17/10 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 3-0, 6/10/10
AYES: Liu, Runner, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Romero
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 74-0, 4/22/10 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Foster care: funding: placement approvals
SOURCE : County of San Bernardino
DIGEST : This bill ensures continued approval and
payments for foster youth relative to caregiver homes,
pending the annual reassessment visit.
ANALYSIS : Existing federal law:
1.Authorizes federal funding for state foster care programs
pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act under
an approved state plan.
2.Requires states to apply the same licensing standards to
all foster family homes receiving Title IV-E funding,
including relative and non-relative caregiver homes. P.L.
CONTINUED
AB 1905
Page
2
No. 105-89, 45 CFR 1355.20(a).
Existing state law:
1.Provides a process for the juvenile court to remove a
child from their parent or guardian and declare
dependency on the basis of abuse or neglect. Welfare and
Institutions Code (WIC) 300.
2.Requires licensure of non-relative foster family homes
prior to the placement of a dependent child. WIC 11402.
3.Exempts relative caregiver and non-relative extended
family member (NREFM) homes from licensure. Health and
Safety Code (HSC) 1505 (k) and (l).
4.Clarifies that California's approval process is the same
for relative and non-relative caregivers and sets forth
standards for the licensure and approval of relative and
non-relative caregiver homes. WIC 309, WIC 362.7, CCR
Title 22, Division 6, chapter 9.5.
5.Defines a "non-relative extended family member" as any
adult caregiver who has an established familial or
mentoring relationship with the child. WIC 362.7.
6.Provides for Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) payment to eligible
children placed in the approved home of a relative or
NREFM. HSC 11402.
This bill:
1.Requires an approval to remain in full force and effect
when an annual reassessment visit is pending for the home
of a relative or NREFM.
2.Requires that payments to the relative or NREFM not be
terminated because of delays in the annual reapproval
process such as a late home visit or corrective action
plan.
3.Specifies that no appropriation shall be made pursuant to
Section 15200 of the WIC for the purposes of implementing
AB 1905
Page
3
this act.
Background
Federal law does not require licensure of relative and
NREFM caregiver homes receiving federal Title IV-E
payments. It does, however, require states to apply the
same licensing standards to both relative and non-relative
homes. While California explicitly exempts relative
caregiver homes from licensure, in response to the federal
Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997, the state
conformed to federal law when it implemented an approval
process for relative homes, administered by counties.
In 2002, the Youth Law Center filed a lawsuit, Higgins v.
Saenz (CPF-02-501937 (Cal. Supr. Crt., Los Angeles County,
Oct. 24, 2002)) alleging the Department of Social Services
(DSS) had not provided adequate oversight of the approval
process for relative homes, thereby threatening the safety
of foster children in relative placements. As part of the
Higgins v. Saenz settlement, DSS implemented the Relative
Approval Monitoring Process and issued guidance to counties
in the form of an All County Letter (ACL 04-02). With this
instruction, DSS required counties to perform an initial
assessment of relative caregiver homes, followed by an
annual reassessment for all relative caregivers. The
guidance provided in ACL 04-02 effectively applied a higher
standard to the approval process for relative caregiver
homes because only a portion of licensed non-relative
foster family homes are reassessed on an annual basis. DSS
has also required, through this higher standard, that
AFDC-FC payments to relative caregivers be terminated if
the annual reassessment is not completed within one year of
the initial approval.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/28/10)
County of San Bernardino (source)
California State Association of Counties
Chief Probation Officers of California
County Welfare Directors Association of California
AB 1905
Page
4
National Association of Social Workers
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
as a result of the higher standards for relative homes, the
state and counties are needlessly losing federal funding
for relative placements. The County of San Bernardino
states:
Due to high workloads at the local level and the fact
that the state underfunds the county workload for
annual reassessments, counties struggle to complete
these reviews on time. We currently have
approximately 1,500 children placed with relatives.
Due to the reduction in our Child Welfare Service
allocation, processing the annual reassessment in a
timely fashion has become an extremely daunting task.
As a result of late reassessment, under state
regulations, the federal funding for these placements
stop, resulting often in an "overpayment" to that home
for the month the home was not deemed in compliance.
For any overpayment to a relative caregiver, the state
must re-pay the federal government its share and
cannot recoup these costs from either foster parents
or counties based on current law.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Bill
Berryhill, Tom Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Bradford,
Brownley, Buchanan, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro,
Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore,
Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes,
Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore,
Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello,
Nielsen, V. Manuel Perez, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas,
Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Audra
Strickland, Swanson, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran,
Villines, Yamada, John A. Perez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blumenfield, Caballero, Huber, Huffman,
Norby
AB 1905
Page
5
CTW:nl 6/28/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****