BILL ANALYSIS
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
945 (Liu)
Hearing Date: 05/03/2010 Amended: 03/08/2010
Consultant: Jacqueline Wong-HernandezPolicy Vote: Public Safety
7-0
Human Services
4-0
_________________________________________________________________
____
BILL SUMMARY: SB 945 requires the juvenile court, whenever it
terminates jurisdiction over a ward, or upon release of a ward
from a non foster care facility, who was at any point previously
adjudged a dependent child of juvenile court, to order the
probation or parole officer to provide the ward with:
1) A written notice stating that he or she is a former
foster child and may be eligible for the services and
benefits that are available to former foster children
through public and private programs, including, but not
limited to, any independent living program for former
foster children.
2) Information on the availability of, and assistance to
enable the person to apply for and gain acceptance into,
federal and state programs that provide independent living
services and benefits to former foster children.
_________________________________________________________________
____
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fund
State mandate: county probation Likely minor, potentially
reimbursable costs General
Independent Living Program (ILP) ***Likely very minor cost
pressure*** General
Federal
_________________________________________________________________
____
STAFF COMMENTS:
This bill is virtually identical to AB 921 (Jones 2009), which
was vetoed. Like AB 921, the scope of this bill is exceedingly
narrow; thus, the mandate on county probation officers (if it
results in a claim and is deemed reimbursable by the Commission
on State Mandates) is unlikely to reach $50,000. This bill
applies only to former foster youth (dependents of the court)
who have become juvenile wards of the court, and who: (a) are
having court jurisdiction terminated, or (b) are being released
from a facility that is not a foster care facility to county
probation or parole jurisdiction. Virtually all individuals
served by this bill are former foster youth who have been
committed to, and are being released by, a Department of
Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility.
In 2008, only 218 wards were discharged from DJJ facilities.
This bill would only apply to the percentage of those wards who
were former foster youth, and who are not returning to a foster
care placement of any kind. (Dependents and wards of the court
placed in one of the many foster care options are entitled, by
existing statute, to be informed of specified services for
former foster youth by their social workers). If 50% of the 218
DJJ wards released met the criteria in this bill, 109 wards
would be eligible
Page 2
SB 945 (Liu)
statwide. Los Angeles County could have as many as 50 wards
eligible to receive the information specified by the bill. Of
those 50 wards, only those assigned to county probation (instead
of a CDCR parole officer) would contribute to a possibly
reimbursable workload increase. It is also unlikely that
implementing the bill's provisions could take more than one hour
of a county probation officer's time, for each ward.
The first provision of this bill requires probation officers to,
at a minimum, provide the ward with a form letter stating his or
her status as a former foster youth and potential eligibility
for services received by former foster youth. This increased
workload would be negligible. The second provision requires a
county probation officer to provide the ward with information
about ILP services, and assistance applying for them. Probation
officers are required to refer the ward to services and provide
basic assistance to pursue those services. This bill requires
county probation officers to, at a minimum, inform the ward of
possible available services, and how to apply. It is possible
that in a large county, this workload might reach the $1,000
threshold for filing a mandate claim.
This bill does not create new eligibility for ILP services or
any other service for former foster youth. Any potential cost
pressure to ILP would be only for the portion of this already
select group that also meets the other requirements for ILP
services. In California, eligibility is only extended to youth
who were in foster care at any time from their 16th to their
19th birthday, or youth who were between the ages of 16 and 18
and participating in the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment
Program (Kin-GAP). Even if every one of the 109 wards was also
eligible for ILP services, which is unlikely, program
participation is voluntary and services vary be county.
Nonetheless, in assessing last year's version, AB 921, the
Governor specified that he was vetoing the bill because of the
possibility of a reimbursable local mandate:
This bill would require county probation officers and parole
officers
to ensure that minors under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court
be provided with written notification of services and benefits
they
may be eligible for upon termination of court jurisdiction.
This
bill also would require probation officers and parole officers
to
provide assistance in obtaining those services and benefits.
This
bill would create local mandated costs attributable to the
requirement that county probation officers provide specified
information and assistance to juvenile wards of the court.
Given the state's severe economic climate and the social
services
reductions being implemented, it is not prudent to expand
requirements imposed on state and local governmental programs.
Therefore, I am returning this bill without my signature.