BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
BILL NO: AB 159
A
AUTHOR: Beall
B
VERSION: March 24, 2011
HEARING DATE: June 14, 2011
1
FISCAL: Appropriations
5
9
CONSULTANT:
Park
SUBJECT
Community care facilities: foster family agencies
SUMMARY
Changes the sunset provision on the requirement for certain
foster family agencies to employ one full-time social work
supervisor for every eight social workers, as specified.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1.Establishes a system of community care facilities
licensing, administered by the Department of Social
Services (DSS), to license and approve out-of-home
placements for abused and neglected children.
2.Establishes foster family agencies (FFAs) as nonprofit
organizations that recruit, train, certify, and provide
support for foster parents who care for children with
intensive care needs as an alternative to group home
placement. Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 1502.
3.Provides for the licensure and regulation of FFAs by DSS,
and applies social worker personnel requirements.
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 159 (Beall) Page
2
4.Requires DSS to differentiate between treatment FFAs,
providing mental health treatment services to foster
youth, and nontreatment FFAs, and to develop licensing
regulations accordingly. HSC 1506 (c).
5.Provides Aid to Families with Dependent Children Foster
Care (AFDC-FC) payments with a state and county
share-of-cost for care and supervision provided to
children in foster care. Welfare and Institutions Code
(WIC) Section 11460.
6.Reduces the FFA rate effective October 1, 2009, by 10
percent, and allows FFAs flexibility in applying the
reduction, provided the amount paid to foster families
providing care to foster children was not reduced more
than 10 percent. WIC 11463 (j).
7.Requires treatment FFAs to employ at least one full-time
social work supervisor for every eight social workers in
the agency, and sunsets this provision January 1, 2012.
HSC 1506.3.
This bill:
1.Deletes the January 1, 2012, sunset date for the one to
eight ratio of social work supervisors to social workers
in the foster family agency, and, instead, sunsets this
ratio when the total foster family agency rate paid to
licensed FFAs is restored to at least the rate effective
on September 30, 2009, and the DSS director issues a
declaration to that effect to the Legislature, as
specified. Repeals the ratio of the date of the
declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, costs
associated with DSS issuing a declaration to the
Legislature would be minor and absorbable within existing
resources.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Author's statement
The author writes that nonprofit foster family agencies
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 159 (Beall) Page
3
(FFAs) provide an important placement alternative to group
homes by offering certified foster homes and the children
they care for with additional services and supports. The
author notes that ABX4 4 (Evans) of 2009, the Human
Services budget trailer bill, applied a 10 percent rate
reduction to FFAs, effective October 1, 2009. The author
states that this rate reduction effectively reduced the
capacity of FFAs to cover costs to less than 63 percent for
2009-10, and that, over the last two decades, FFA costs, as
measured by the California Necessities Index, have
increased by over 76 percent while their rates have
increased by less than 24 percent.
The author believes that FFAs cannot continue to operate
within the existing requirements of the foster care
rate-setting and community care licensing systems. The
author points to enacted legislation allowing FFAs to
adjust the ratio for social work supervisors to social
workers, similar to this legislation. The author states
that AB 159 would address the continuing problem of
inadequate rate, created by the 10 percent rate cut, by
extending the adjusted 1 to 8 ratio for social work
supervisors to social workers until the rate cut is fully
restored.
Foster Family Agencies
Established in 1985 as an alternative to group home
placements, FFAs are not-for-profit agencies that train,
recruit and certify foster parents. County placement
agencies use licensed private non-profit FFAs to place
children who require more intensive care in foster family
homes with training and support services as an alternative
to group homes.
According to DSS, there are 464 FFAs in California
providing care and treatment to approximately 11,817 foster
children. Initially intended as an alternative to group
home placement for children with higher service needs, FFAs
now provide placements to almost half of all foster
children in nonrelative placements in California.
DSS has statutory responsibility for developing,
implementing, and maintaining a rate setting system for
FFAs receiving Aid to Families with Dependent
Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) funds. DSS distinguishes
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 159 (Beall) Page
4
between two types of FFAs for the purposes of rate setting
and regulations. "Treatment foster care," also referred to
as "therapeutic foster care" provides a higher level of
care to children with needs that cannot be met in foster
family homes, and who would otherwise require a group home
placement. FFAs may also certify a family home seeking to
adopt a foster child as a "nontreatment foster care"
placement.
FFA and other foster care provider rates were cut by 10
percent as part of the state budget effective on October 1,
2009. Acknowledging the impact of the 10 percent FFA rate
cut, SB 597 (Liu), Chapter 339, Statutes of 2009, adjusted
the ratio of FFA supervisor to staff ratio from 1:6 to the
existing 1:8 ratio. The change initially was set to expire
on January 1, 2011, but was extended by one more year to
January 1, 2012 with the passage of AB 2474 (Beall) Chapter
43, Statutes of 2010.
Prior to SB 597, social work supervisor/social worker
ratios had been set forth in regulations (Title 22,
Division 6, Chapter 8.8), which distinguished between the
ratios applied to treatment and nontreatment agencies.
Treatment FFAs had been required to employ one social work
supervisor for every six social workers, whereas
nontreatment FFAs had to adhere to the 1:8
supervisor/social worker ratio.
State law and regulations require FFA social work
supervisors to meet minimum education and experience
standards, including the requirement to have a master's
degree in social work or a related field. Social work
supervisors are responsible for, among other assigned
duties, training, oversight, and review of social workers'
casework, and ensuring that their agency social workers
perform their duties in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
According to the Council on Accreditation (COA) standards,
supervisor-to-social worker ratios generally should not
exceed the 1:8 ratio, as they cite research to suggest that
supportive, quality supervision can lead to better service
delivery to children and families, better productivity, and
less turnover among social work staff. The COA standards
do not, however, delineate the standards that should be
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 159 (Beall) Page
5
applied to the treatment versus nontreatment categories of
services overseen by a social work supervisor, as found
under state regulation.
Prior legislation
AB 2474 (Beall) Chapter 43, Statutes of 2010 extended by
one year, from 2011 to January 1, 2012, the sunset
provision on the requirement for FFAs to employ one
full-time social work supervisor for every eight social
workers.
SB 597 (Liu), Chapter 339, Statutes of 2009, adjusted the
ratio of FFA supervisor to staff ratio from one social work
supervisor to six social workers to the existing 1:8 ratio.
Arguments in support
The sponsor of this bill, the California Alliance for
Child and Family Services (CACFS), writes that FFA
rates have been cut by 10 percent for the past two
years and prior to that cut, FFA rates had been frozen
for 15 out of the past 19 years. The group writes
that, as a result, the FFA rate to cover the cost of
care and social work for foster children has declined
to just 70 percent of what it originally was in 1990.
The group notes that, in order to absorb these cuts,
many FFAs have been forced to lay off social workers,
are borrowing money to keep operating, are spending
down savings, are fundraising in an increasingly
competitive environment or have shut down their
programs. The group states that, under the current
rate reductions, FFAs need some flexibility within the
rate-setting and community care licensing systems,
and, while this may seem minor, it could make the
difference between an FFA having to borrow more money
to remain in operation or close down altogether.
The National Association of Social Workers, California
Chapter, writes that, although it prefers the previous
ratio of 1:6 supervisors to social workers, it understand
the budget constraints that the state is facing, and that
it would be appropriate to return to the 1:6 ratio when the
state's fiscal situation has improved.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 159 (Beall) Page
6
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor: 73 - 0
Assembly Appropriations:15 - 0
Assembly Human Services: 6 - 0
POSITIONS
Support: California Alliance of Child and Family Services
(sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Aspiranet
County Welfare Directors Association of
California
National Association of Social Workers -
California Chapter
1 individual
Oppose:None received
-- END --