BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 989
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 989 (Mitchell)
          As Amended May 27, 2011
          Majority vote 

           HEALTH              15-1        HUMAN SERVICES      6-0         
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Monning, Ammiano, Atkins, |Ayes:|Beall, Jones, Ammiano,    |
          |     |Bonilla, Eng, Gordon,     |     |Grove, Butler, Swanson    |
          |     |Hayashi,                  |     |                          |
          |     |Roger Hern�ndez, Bonnie   |     |                          |
          |     |Lowenthal, Mitchell,      |     |                          |
          |     |Nestande, Pan,            |     |                          |
          |     |V. Manuel P�rez, Smyth,   |     |                          |
          |     |Williams                  |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Mansoor                   |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           APPROPRIATIONS      12-5                                        
           
           -------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield,     |
          |     |Bradford, Charles         |
          |     |Calderon, Campos, Davis,  |
          |     |Gatto, Hall, Hill, Lara,  |
          |     |Mitchell, Solorio         |
          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly,         |
          |     |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner    |
          |     |                          |
           -------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Requires counties to include programs that consider 
          the needs of transition age foster youth in their three-year 
          plans for funding from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA).

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee, negligible net state fiscal impact.  Depending on how 
          counties interpret and apply these provisions and the extent to 
          which counties are currently providing services for transition 
          age foster youth, this bill could result in unknown potential 








                                                                  AB 989
                                                                  Page  2


          cost shifts.  Potential cost shifts would likely not exceed the 
          low millions of dollars. 

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, transition age foster youth 
          between the ages of 16 and 25 suffer among the worst rates of 
          mental illness of any population as a result of being uniformly 
          abused and neglected by their parents, separated from their 
          siblings and grandparents, shuffled from placement to placement, 
          and kicked to the streets to fend for themselves when they turn 
          18 and age out of the system.  The author notes that while the 
          MHSA directly references the need to fund programs that ensure 
          that transition age youth (TAY) ages 16-25 achieve 
          self-sufficiency successfully, transition age foster youth are a 
          subgroup of this population that warrants special treatment and 
          elevated priority because they have uniquely acute mental health 
          needs that separate them from their TAY peers.

          In January 2010, the Children's Advocacy Institute (CAI), the 
          sponsor of this bill, released a report that reviewed whether or 
          not MHSA-funded programs are reaching the state's transition age 
          foster youth.  The report notes that foster youth transitioning 
          out of care have unique standing among priority populations for 
          programs funded by MHSA for numerous reasons.  Specifically, the 
          report finds that transition age foster youth lack parental 
          support to help them cope with their mental health challenges 
          and, as children of the state, they are owed a special moral as 
          well as legal obligation to ensure their emotional and mental 
          wellness; they are cloaked by a confidential child welfare 
          system that makes it difficult for them to provide input to 
          county officials when making local planning decisions; they 
          experience mental illnesses, including suicidal behavior, major 
          depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder, at 
          significantly higher rates than the general population, and, 
          lastly, they lack the traditional roots provided by a family 
          structure so they tend to move between counties as they exit the 
          foster care system and are unable to take advantage of county 
          programs that do not accept out-of-county youth.  

          In November 2004, voters passed MHSA or Proposition 63.  MHSA 
          requires each county mental health department to prepare and 
          submit a three-year plan to the Department of Mental Health 
          (DMH).  DMH is required to provide guidelines to counties 
          related to each component of the MHSA, including, among other 
          things, community services and support content to provide 








                                                                  AB 989
                                                                  Page  3


          integrated mental health and other support services to those 
          whose needs are not currently met through other funding sources; 
          prevention and early intervention content to provide services to 
          avert mental health crises; and, innovative program content to 
          improve access to mental health care.  In their three-year 
          plans, counties are required to include a list of all programs 
          for which MHSA funding is being requested that identifies how 
          the funds will be spent and which populations will be served.

          CAI writes in support that, because transition age foster youth 
          have unique experiences and unique characteristics as a group, 
          any program attempting to address their mental health and 
          well-being must be equally unique, and specifically tailored to 
          meet these specific issues.  CAI states that this bill simply 
          clarifies for local MHSA authorities that funding for programs 
          for transition age youth includes programs that address the more 
          acute and desperate needs of the smaller subcategory of 
          transition age foster youth.  The California Alliance of Child 
          and Family Services adds that the inclusion of transitional 
          foster youth in county MHSA plans will ensure that this fragile 
          population is better able to access mental health services to 
          address their needs.

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Cassie Royce / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 


                                                                FN: 0001001