BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
1933 (Brownley)
Hearing Date: 08/12/2010 Amended: 04/05/2010
Consultant: Dan Troy Policy Vote: ED 7-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: AB 1933 would establish the right of foster
youth to remain in their "school of origin" for the duration of
the jurisdiction of the court despite changes in placement;
would provide that foster youth be allowed to complete the
academic year in the school of origin in cases where the
jurisdiction of the court ends during the school year; and would
allow foster youth to continue attending school in the district
of origin in the same attendance area, if transitioning to
junior high school or high school, as specified.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
School of origin Likely minor
General*
transportation for
*Counts toward meeting the Proposition 98 minimum funding
guarantee
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE. AS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED.
Current state law requires educational placements of foster
youth to be in the "best interests" of the child. State law
also allows foster youth to remain in their school of origin
pending the resolution of any dispute concerning a request to
remain in the school. State law also requires districts to
allow foster youth to continue his or her education in the
school of origin for the duration of the academic year even
after a change in residential placement. Current law also
provides that the selection of the child's residential placement
must promote educational stability and to consider proximity to
the school attendance area.
The federal government recently enacted the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
which adds new requirements toward ensuring educational
stability for foster youth. Among other things, the Act
requires assurance that that the state agency has coordinated
with local education agencies to ensure the child remains in the
school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement.
The author's office contends that this bill is merely conforming
state law to new federal requirements. However, federal law is
not specific in terms of timeframe for the requirement to allow
foster youth to remain in their school of origin. This bill
would allow foster youth to remain in the school of origin or
matriculate to subsequent schools in the same attendance area
indefinitely. It is not clear that this is the intent of
federal law. To the extent this bill's requirements exceed
federal law, the state could be exposed to
Page 2
AB 1933 (Brownley)
reimbursable mandate costs. While allowing students to remain
in the school of origin should not result in many new areas of
cost exposure (the state pays for the claimed ADA of the pupil),
there is a potential mandate cost related to the transportation
of foster youth that have Individual education programs (IEP).
Federal law requires districts to provide for transportation for
pupils with IEPs. As districts could argue that this bill
allows pupils to remain in their school of origin for multiple
years after a change of residential placement, they could
increase the transportation costs for pupils with IEPs.
According to the Department of Social Services, there are at
least 40,000 foster youths (FY) between the ages of 5 and 17.
Given trends in the overall school population, it is reasonable
to assume that at least 4,000 (10 percent) of those FY have
IEPs. DSS estimates annual transportation costs for out of
district placements at approximately $1,980 per pupil. While it
is unclear how many pupils would generate new costs, the state
exposure is likely significant, perhaps costs of several hundred
thousand dollars or in the low millions.
Staff notes that there is a proposal in the 2010-11 budget to
expand federal reimbursement of educational transportation costs
for foster youths with out of district residential placements.
It is not clear if that proposal will be sustained in the final
budget or if those funds would serve to offset any potential LEA
mandate claims.
Author's proposed amendments would specify that LEAs are only
responsible for transportation costs that result from federal
law.