BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1697
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1697 (Perea) - As Amended: March 29, 2012
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:6 - 0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
The bill requires the State Department of Social Services (DSS)
to designate a separate data entry field in the Child Welfare
Services Case Management System (CWS/CMS) for a county foster
family agency (FFA) to record information on the reasons for
placement of a child with a foster family agency or group home,
and requires county social workers to record this information in
CWS/CMS when the placement is made.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)On-going costs between $90,000 and $180,000 ($42,000 and
$84,000 GF) for the additional workload associated with social
workers including a narrative description in CWS/CMS of their
placement decisions for over 15,000 foster children per year
who are placed in either group homes or FFA homes.
2)Unknown, likely minor cost pressure for the automation changes
associated with reprograming the CWS/CMS system and developing
a query capability that allows information placed in the
narrative field to be searched and compiled into useful,
reportable data. For example, if these changes require 40
hours of reprogramming, it would cost approximately $10,000.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The intent of this legislation is to ensure that
county child welfare workers consider the proper placement for
a child by requiring them to include the reason for the
particular placement in the child's electronic record. The
author argues that there are times when children are placed in
AB 1697
Page 2
more restrictive settings, like FFAs, when the appropriate
placement would be a foster family home. This bill would
require the social worker to explain the decision for the
placement.
This bill comes from a Bureau of State Audits (BSA) report
that found that although FFAs were originally intended as an
alternative to group home placement for children with higher
service needs, they now provide placements to almost half of
all foster children in nonrelative placements in California.
The report noted that while the number of children in
placement has dramatically decreased in the last 10 years, the
percentage of children placed with FFAs - whose monthly
compensation is significantly higher than state- or
county-licensed foster homes - has continued to increase. The
auditor posits that a potential explanation for this trend is
that, in contrast to requirements related to group home
placements, the Department of Social Services does not require
county CWS agencies to document the treatment needs of
children placed with FFAs. The author hopes that creating this
requirement will help reduce the number of children
inappropriately placed in FFAs and group homes.
2)Foster Family Agencies . County welfare departments are
responsible for placing children in foster care homes. The
homes fall into three categories: group homes, FFA homes, and
foster family homes (FFH). Foster family agencies are
nonprofit organizations that recruit foster parents, certify
them for participation in the program, and provide training
and support services. FFAs are reimbursed at a rate that falls
between the grants paid to foster family homes and the average
rate for group homes. Foster family agencies were established
to serve as alternatives to group home placement.
3)Legislative Analyst's Office . Over the last two decades the
Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) has noted a similar trend
to that found in the BSA audit. A growing number of children
are placed in FFAs, as opposed to the lower cost FFHs and,
further, the LAO investigation found that the children in FFAs
seemed to stay longer in care than those placed in FFHs.
In their 2002-03 in-depth report the LAO concluded, "Based on
our review of research and data on FFA placements, we conclude
(1) children stay longer in FFAs than FFHs; (2) neither child
nor biological family differences explain the longer stays;
AB 1697
Page 3
and (3) youth in FFHs have more positive permanency outcomes
than their FFA counterparts. Finally, we would note that while
the outcomes for children in FFAs are less positive than for
children in FFHs, the costs for FFA placements are more than
twice that of FFH placements. Accordingly, we believe that
limiting the use of FFA placements could both improve foster
youth permanence and result in savings."
Based on their findings at the time, the LAO recommended
adjusting the treatment rate funding for FFAs over time to
encourage the movement of children toward reunification or
adoption. While the rate paid to the FFA foster family would
remain the same over time, the portion of the rate paid to the
FFA organization for services and administration would
decrease the longer a child remained in care. For example, the
monthly services and administration component per child could
be reduced by one-quarter (between approximately $240 and
$270), incrementally, after each six-month period.
Given the depth and persistence of the problem, it is unclear
that simply providing a field in the CWS/CMS system for social
workers to document their reason for placement would reverse
the trend.
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081