BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1766
Page A
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1766 (Nazarian) - As Amended: April 23, 2014
SUBJECT : Foster youth: transitional housing pilot project
SUMMARY : Provides Los Angeles County the authority to establish
a transitional housing pilot project in conjunction with the
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and First Star,
Incorporated (FSI). Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes Legislative findings and declarations about the
educational challenges facing children in foster care and that
expanding the First Star UCLA Bruin Guardian Scholar Summer
Academy into a year-round placement would allow foster youth
to fully realize the benefits of going to college.
2)Requires the Department of Social Services, at the option of
the County of Los Angeles, to implement a pilot project in Los
Angeles County with UCLA and FSI, or a related nonprofit child
advocacy organization, to establish the "University-Affiliated
First Star High School Academy" (Academy).
3)Requires the Academy to be licensed as a transitional housing
placement provider (THPP) and include the following
components:
a) Serve foster children who are attending high school and
are at least 13 years of age, but not older than 21 years
of age;
b) Provide housing units that are adequate, safe and
sanitary and meet existing requirements of the types of
living environments approved for a THPP, as specified, and
expands the types of living environments in which a foster
child may live to include, but not be limited to,
residential facilities for participants and supervisory
adults, dormitory, multioccupant, clustered, hub, and other
housing layouts and arrangements as are commonly found in a
college or university environment; and
c) Provide a program staffing ratio of one staff member for
every three residents:
AB 1766
Page B
4)Requires the academy to be reimbursed at 160% of the monthly
THPP rate, as specified.
5)Requires DSS to submit a report evaluating the effectiveness
of the pilot project to the appropriate committees of the
Legislature by January 1, 2020.
6)Sunsets the pilot on January 1, 2024.
7)Specifies that no child welfare services (CWS) realignment
funds may be appropriated for the purposes of the pilot.
EXISTING LAW
1)States that the purpose of foster care law is to provide
maximum safety and protection for children who are currently
being physically, sexually, emotionally abused, neglected, or
exploited, and to ensure the safety, protection, and physical
and emotional well-being of children who are at risk of harm.
(W&I Code 300.2)
2)States the intent of the Legislature to preserve and
strengthen a child's family ties whenever possible and to
reunify a foster youth with his or her biological family
whenever possible, or to provide a permanent placement
alternative, such as adoption or guardianship. (W&I Code
16000)
3)Reaffirms the Legislature's commitment to children who are in
out-of-home placement to live in the least restrictive, most
family like setting and to live as close to the child's family
as possible, as specified, and to provide family reunification
services in order to facilitate the expeditious reunification
of the child with his or her family. (W&I Code 16000)
4)Requires the juvenile court to place a child in foster care
into a placement that is the least restrictive or most family
like and the most appropriate setting that is available and in
close proximity to the parent's home, proximity to the child's
school, and consistent with the selection of the environment
best suited to meet the child's special needs and best
interests. (W&I Code 16501.1(c)(1))
5)Requires placement of a child in foster care to be made in the
following priority: placement with relatives, nonrelated
AB 1766
Page C
extended family members, tribal members, and foster family
homes, certified homes of foster family agencies, intensive
treatment or multidimensional treatment foster care homes,
group care placements, and residential treatment facilities,
as specified. (W&I Code 16501.1(c)(1))
6)If a group care placement is selected for a child, requires
the case plan to indicate the needs of the child that
necessitate the placement, the plan for transitioning the
child to a less restrictive environment, and the projected
timeline by which the child will be transitioned to a less
restrictive environment; and for the case plan to be reviewed
by the juvenile court and updated at least semiannually by the
CWA. (W&I Code 16501.1(c)(2))
7)Limits the placement of children under the age of 12 into
group care upon specified conditions if the placement is for
less than six months and is needed to provide specialized or
intensive treatment for the child, as specified. (W&I Code
361.2)
8)States the intent of the Legislature that no child or youth in
foster care reside in group care for longer than one year and
requires DSS to provide updates to the Legislature regarding
the outcomes of assessments of children and youth who have
been in group homes for longer than one year and the
corresponding outcomes of transitions, or plans to transition,
them into family settings. (W&I Code 16010.8)
9)Requires the juvenile court, when considering placement of a
child in foster care, to make full consideration for the
proximity of the child's natural parents to the placement in
order to facilitate visitation and family reunification, and
if possible, for the placement to be made in the home of a
relative, unless as otherwise specified. (Family Code
7950(a))
10)Requires county child welfare agencies (CWA) to make diligent
efforts, as determined by the court, to locate an appropriate
relative before any child may be placed in long-term foster
care, and provides that nothing may preclude a search for an
appropriate relative while the child is in foster care.
(Family Code 7950(a(1) and (c))
11)In fulfilling the Legislature's intent to ensure quality care
AB 1766
Page D
for children who are placed in the continuum foster care
placement settings, requires DSS to establish, in consultation
with county welfare departments and other stakeholders, a
working group to develop recommended revisions to the current
delivery of services provided by foster family agencies and
group homes, as specified. (W&I Code 11461.2)
12)Requires the recommended revisions to consider, among other
things, how to ensure the provision of services in family-like
settings including after care services, when appropriate, and
to submit the revisions in a report to the Legislature by
October 1, 2014, as specified. (W&I Code 11461.2(d))
13)For children over the age of three who are placed into foster
care, permits the juvenile court to order family reunification
services, to be provided by a CWA, for a period of 12 months
after the child entered foster care with an extension of
six-months, as specified. (W&I Codes 361.5(a)(1)(A) and
361.5(a)(3))
14)Requires THPP providers, in order to be eligible to receive
federal and state foster care payments and to provide
transitional housing services to children in foster care
between 16 and 19 years of age to be certified by their
respective county prior to licensure by DSS, and to be
licensed by DSS. (W&I Code 16522.1 and H&S Code 1559.110)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
Maintaining the Family : Historically, it has been the stated
policy of California that when a child is removed from the home,
first preference should be given to placing the child with
another parent, or with his or her relatives whenever possible
and appropriate. This has helped to preserve and strengthen the
social bedrock of our society, by keeping families together and
reducing society's reliance on its social welfare system.
Child Welfare Services : The purpose of California's Child
Welfare Services (CWS) system is to provide for the protection
and the health and safety of children. Within this purpose, the
desired outcome is to reunite children with their biological
parents, when appropriate, to help preserve and strengthen
families. However, if reunification with the biological family
AB 1766
Page E
is not appropriate, children are placed in the best environment
possible, whether that is with a relative, through adoption, or
with a guardian, such as a nonrelated extended family member, as
specified. In the case of children who are at risk of abuse,
neglect or abandonment, county juvenile courts hold legal
jurisdiction and children are served by the CWS system through
the appointment of a social worker. Through this system, there
are multiple stages where the custody of the child or his or her
placement are evaluated, reviewed and determined by the judicial
system, in consultation with the child's social worker to help
provide the best possible services to the child.
At the time a child is identified as needing child welfare
services and is in the temporary custody of a social worker, the
social worker is required to identify whether there is a
relative or guardian to whom a child may be released, unless the
social worker believes that the child would be at risk of abuse,
neglect or abandonment if placed with that relative or guardian.
The W&I Code also lays out the conditions under which a court
may deem a child a dependent or ward of the court, including
when the parent has been incarcerated or institutionalized and
is unable to arrange for care for the child, such as placement
with a known relative or nonrelative extended family member
(NREFM). If the child is deemed a dependent or ward of the
court, the court may maintain the child in his or her home,
remove the child from the home but with the goal of reunifying
the child with his or her family, or identify another form of
permanent placement. Unless the child is unable to be placed
with the parent, the court is required to give preference to a
relative of the child in order to preserve the child's
association with his or her family. Associated with the
placement, the assigned social worker shall develop a case plan
for the child, which outlines the placement for the child, sets
forth services necessary for the child, and outlines the
provision of reunification services, if necessary and
appropriate.
Reunification and permanency goals : It has long been the policy
of the state to place children who have been removed from the
"care, custody, and control" of their parent(s) in an
environment that is as least restrictive as possible and is in
close proximity to their family, if appropriate, in order to
facilitate the successful reunification of the child with his or
her family as quickly as possible. The purpose is to limit as
best as possible the already traumatic experiences a child goes
AB 1766
Page F
through with having to be removed from his or her home due to
abuse and neglect.
When children are removed from the home, but the court
determines, in consultation with a child's social worker, that
the child would ultimately benefit from being returned to the
family, the court can order reunification services for the child
and his or her family. Reunification services are generally
developed on a case-by-case basis to accommodate and respond to
the needs of the child and the parents to better facilitate the
child's reunification with his or her parent(s).
Reunifications services can include family therapy, parenting
classes, drug and alcohol abuse treatment, respite care, parent
support groups, home visiting programs, and other coordinated
and tailored services necessary to assist the child and the
family with reunification. Under current law, for children
under the age of three, reunification services are offered for
six months and 12 months for children over the age of three. A
six-month extension may be made if the court finds there is
substantial probability that the child will be returned to the
physical custody of his or her parent(s) within the extended
time period or that reasonable services have not been provided
to the parent(s).
In cases where family reunification is deemed unsuccessful or is
deemed not to be in the best interests of the child, placement
with a relative, a NREFM or a family foster home, in that order
of priority, is required for consideration. Only in more
challenging situations are group homes or other intensive
treatment placement options considered in order to help
stabilize the needs of the child in order to transition him or
her into a less restrictive environment, such as a family-like
placement, e.g. a relative, NREFM or a foster caregiver.
Transitional Housing Placement Program (THPP) : THPP is a type
of foster care placement for foster youth who are 16 and 17
years of age, but can serve 18 year olds, as well. According to
DSS, the goal of the program is to provide a safe living
environment so that the youth can practice the skills necessary
to live on their own upon leaving the foster care support
system. Through the program, foster youth live independently, as
provided through a Transitional Independent Living Plan (TILP),
which is developed by the youth in conjunction with his or her
social worker, the court, and other specified individuals who
AB 1766
Page G
are required to provide support and care for the youth. Through
the TILP, the youth receives an array of supportive services to
achieve the goals laid out in the TILP. These services are
intended to help the youth in attaining emancipation preparation
goals, which include but are not limited to education
attainment, financial management skills, and gainful employment.
THPP, however, is not without its challenges. Although it is a
program designed specifically for 16 and 17 year old foster
youth, it is not widely used, very costly, and has raised
questions as to whether it is appropriate to allow a foster
youth to live independently prior to age 18. Like many children
who live with their biological parents until and likely after
age 18, a concern has been raised that placing a foster youth
into a THPP results in the youth growing up outside of a family
environment, and can result in unintended developmental harm to
the youth. It is also estimated that many foster youth placed
in THPPs are predominantly 18 years of age.
Congregate care reform (CCR) : Over the past 25 years the
Legislature has taken numerous and continuous steps towards
decreasing the reliance on congregate care, otherwise referred
to as group home care for children in foster care. Group homes
have been a consistent presence in the state's child welfare
services (CWS) system, however, their use has been on the
decline. The decline in the use of group homes has been, in
large part, due to the growing amount of widely available
research that has demonstrated that placing maltreated children
in group homes should be used only on a short-term basis for
emergency or crisis treatment. In fact, the Legislature's
involvement in CCR has been extensive. Over the past 20 years,
a number of legislative, budget, administrative, and advocacy
based efforts have been pursued to reform the state's CWS system
and reduce its reliance upon group homes:
1) SB 2236 (Presley) Chapter 2234, Statutes of 1990 -
Established the intensive treatment foster care (IFTC)
pilot program to transition emotionally disturbed
children from group care to non-institutional family
homes with intensive treatment and support services.
2) AB 636 (Bates) Chapter 673, Statutes of 1993 - Made
permanent the ITFC program limited group home placements
to short term, emergency placements for arranging
AB 1766
Page H
placement in in a less restrictive setting.
3) AB 1187 (Bates) Chapter 1088, Statutes of 1993 -
Limits the placement of children under six years of age
in group care.
4) AB 2297 (Cunneen) Chapter 274, Statutes of 1996 -
Established the wraparound services pilot program to
provide intensive home-based services for children in
foster care in order to avoid placement in institutional
facilities, i.e. group homes.
5) SB 933 (Thompson) Chapter 311, Statutes of 1998 -
Made significant changes to CWS law, including a
requirement of DSS to re-examine the role of group care
for children in foster care. The final SB 933 report
proposed a system redesign with 31 recommendations and a
five-year reform implementation plan.
6) In 2004 the California Alliance for Child and Family
Services (CACFS) convenes a "Framework for a New System
for Residentially-Based Services in California"
workgroup.
7) SB 1570 (Alquist) of 2006 - Although held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee, it would have required
DSS to create a plan for transforming group care into a
system of residentially based services (RBS).
8) AB 1453 (Soto) Chapter 466, Statutes of 2007 -
Established the RBS pilot program to reconfigure the
current statewide system of group homes into a system of
residentially based services and authorizes counties to
enter into agreements to transform individual group home
programs.
9) AB 2129 (Bass) Chapter 594, Statutes of 2010 -
Extended the RBS pilot program until January 1, 2015 and
requires DSS to submit a plan for transition to RBS by
2014.
10) In 2010 DSS pursues the CCR Integration Project to
map current reform efforts and creates a six-month to
two-year implementation plan.
AB 1766
Page I
11) SB 1013 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review) Chapter
35, Statutes of 2012 - The CWS budget trailer bill, which
realigned CWS to counties, establishes a moratorium on
the licensing of new group homes, and requires DSS to
convene a CCR workgroup to provide recommendations to the
Legislature and the Governor on how to reform the use of
group homes in California. The CCR report is due to the
Legislature in October 2014.
Additionally, in June 2011 the Assembly Human Services Committee
and the Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care held a joint
informational hearing on CCR. The purpose of the hearing was to
examine group homes as a foster care placement, the status of
various reform efforts across California, and how the State can
move the reform agenda forward in new ways. In its background
paper, the committees stated that:
While there may be a need for some form of congregate care
in the continuum of child welfare services, policymakers
and child advocates have appropriately questioned how
foster youth are faring in these placements; how to define
the appropriate role for group homes in that continuum; and
how to align policy and practice with federal and state
child welfare goals for safety, well-being, and permanency
for foster youth.<1>
It has been estimated that a child in foster care will
experience, on average, five foster care placements before they
are placed into a group home. This has resulted in some sectors
of the CWS system declaring these children as "difficult to
place." In so doing, it has caused some people to associate a
foster youth's high number of placements with the youth's
behavior as opposed to whether the system properly identified
and provided appropriate and effective supportive services to
the child. This is contrary to how the Legislature has worked
with the Governor, the administration, counties and child
welfare advocates to help put in place a system that responds to
the needs of youth in foster care by focusing on family
reunification and permanency. The current and past efforts to
reform the state's CWS system have focused on how to better
identify and address the needs of foster youth through less
---------------------------
<1> Assembly Human Services Committee and Assembly Select
Committee on Foster Care Oversight Background Paper. Congregate
Care Reform: The Future of Foster Youth in Group Homes. June 28,
2011. Page 1.
AB 1766
Page J
restrictive and more accommodating services and placements,
rather than responding with placing a child into higher
structured and more restrictive services and placements.
Mission Focused Solutions Budget Proposal : Mission Focused
Solutions, a foster care advocacy organization, has requested a
one-time allocation of $750,000 to establish a program to
improve permanency outcomes for youth in foster care with
ongoing support of $1.15 million each year thereafter. This
proposal is emblematic of the continuing efforts to move away
from group care and place more focus on making reunification and
permanency the desired outcome for children in foster care.
Specifically, the funding would provide start-up capital for two
counties to create or expand specialized youth permanency
programs, requiring that the county track and reinvest savings
to sustain the programs long term, replicating a successful
model pioneered by Sacramento County. The program would target
youth age 9 and older and in care for at least 18 months, with a
strong emphasis on placing them into relative care settings.
Need for this bill : Stating the need for the bill, the author
writes:
Research shows that youth who have left the foster care
system are significantly more likely to drop out of high
school. [This bill] allows California an opportunity to
pilot a new model, Academy 365, whose goal is to increase
the number of foster youth that graduate from high school
and obtain a higher education degree. The partnership
between First Star and UCLA will pilot Academy 365, which
will offer an immersive sense of high achievement, numerous
undergraduate role models, stability and a robust ladder to
a successful future. It is necessary to prepare foster
youth in high school, like every other child, to aspire to
attend and thrive in college. This is the goal [this bill]
seeks to accomplish.
Writing in support of the bill, the sponsor states:
First Star supports [this bill] because we believe this
transformative pilot model is a major future pathway to
college for California's foster youth, of whom only 3% ever
achieve a Bachelor's degree. Our stable and supportive
environment adjacent to UCLA, one of the nation's best
AB 1766
Page K
universities, will create the support and motivation needed
for these youth to succeed in college and life afterwards.
In addition, we strongly believe the Academy will enhance
the possibilities of reunification or permanent adoption
for our students, because they will visibly improve
academically, behaviorally and in the caliber of their
hopes and dreams.
Our existing summer program at UCLA shows that this idea
works. If in parallel and interactively, we extend the
model to year-round, we believe the results will be
incrementally beneficial. The most elite families in the
nation send their youth to the high-achieving Choate,
Exeter and Andover residential academies? shouldn't we
pilot doing the same for the foster youth in our care?
Writing in opposition to the bill, the Youth Law Center states:
[This bill] asks the Legislature to create a special
congregate care program at almost twice the rate of
existing programs without any evidence that the model will
result in better outcomes for foster youth, and in spite of
evidence that the model actually harms youth. The bill
preamble cites several statistics detailing the grim
outcomes foster youth face after leaving care: early
parenthood, homelessness, incarceration, and lack of a
college degree. Yet there is no evidence to support that
an educational themed congregate care facility will result
in foster youth avoiding the cited perils. A congregate
care facility where children live year round and have no
home to return to is an entirely different model from the
summer enrichment "camp-like" model that currently serving
youth and families well.
Not only does the proposal fail to provide any evidence of
effectiveness, the bill effectively abandons permanency,
the key element that research has proven to provide a
protective factor for foster youth. Children as young as
14 would be "permanently planned" to live out their foster
care days in congregate care. Foster youth would be
"immersed" in a program that would deprive them of
opportunities to interact with people outside of the foster
care system in a normalized setting. Foster youth in the
pilot program would effectively have a permanent plan of
"independent living" without the opportunity to maintain or
AB 1766
Page L
cultivate a lifelong connection to a committed and caring
adult. [This bill] also fails to detail how the well-being
of foster youth will be improved by placement in a
congregate care setting.
[This bill] also back doors the moratorium and the CCR
process to avoid review and accountability of the proposed
program. All other prospective congregate care providers
in the state face scrutiny of their proposed program to
insure that the program meets a current need and is
consistent with the state's policy of prioritizing foster
youth's need for permanency, safety and well-being. The
proposed pilot, as described, is not aligned with the
objectives of CCR or the moratorium. Resources would be
much better utilized developing a high quality school that
all children in foster care can attend and investing in the
capacity of the child welfare agency to develop more family
settings for our most vulnerable youth.
Staff comments : This bill aims to create a modified THPP as a
pilot program to be operated in collaboration with the County of
Los Angeles, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), and
the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for the
purposes of establishing a University-Affiliated High School
Academy for foster youth. The purpose is to build off of the
sponsor's experience in running a summer foster youth academy on
the campus of UCLA. This summer program; the UCLA Bruin
Guardian Academy (BGA), is a one-month summer program, operated
by First Star, Incorporated, whereby foster youth in Los
Angeles County live on the campus and are immersed in a "summer
bridge" type program. Such programs often target
underrepresented and at-risk youth by exposing them to a college
campus environment to help raise awareness and build confidence
that they can go to and succeed in college.
Though well intended, the bill raises a number of issues. Most
predominantly is that as currently written it creates a pilot
program that is narrowly tailored in a manner that would make it
difficult for a more experienced or qualified entity other than
the sponsor to be awarded the pilot. As a result, the bill
could be considered a "sole-sourced" bill.
This measure also sets a statutory precedent that could
undermine the current moratorium on the approval of new group
homes. As previously noted, for more than 25 years the state
AB 1766
Page M
and foster care advocates have been working to reduce reliance
on group care as a placement for children in foster care. By
establishing this pilot program, although aiming to modify THPP
to fit its model, the intent of the bill, according to the
sponsor, is to create a group care program for high school aged
youth. If adopted, it would be equivalent to an exemption to
the current group home moratorium, which would likely result in
subsequent legislative efforts by current or prospective
entities to create their own exemption to operate a group home.
It would also further conflict with the current intent of the
Legislature that foster youth are not placed in a group care
setting for more than one year. As proposed, this bill will
allow a foster youth to be in a group home for four consecutive
years. This also contrary to one of the foundational purposes
of foster care; that it be as short-term and as temporary as
possible to reduce any undue harm due to the removal of the
child from the family, as well as avoid emotional and
developmental harm to the child due to separation from his or
her parent(s).
The sponsor has also stated that this program would be intended
for foster youth who have no chance of being adopted or reaching
permanency. However, this reasoning is problematic and contrary
to the purpose of the state's CWS system. As children grow
older in foster care their chances of being adopted does
decrease, however, that opportunity never disappears. Every
child in foster care has an opportunity to reach permanency
through reunification with his or her family, adoption, or
kinship guardianship.
Regarding the residential component, the pilot program allows
two sequential cohorts of 25 to 50 foster youth into the program
who would live together in the THPP until their graduation from
high school. The intent would be for the youth to live in a
converted sorority house and attend high school at University
Senior High School, which also houses the Indian Springs
Continuation High School; an alternative high school. However,
the bill does not provide a process for how school enrollment
would be addressed, nor whether it would comply with the
requirement that a placement be in the least restrictive
environment possible.
The sponsor also argues that by placing the youth in this
program, and in coordination and collaboration with UCLA, that
the program will "offer stability, an immersive sense of high
AB 1766
Page N
achievement, numerous undergraduate role models and a robust
ladder to a successful future." Yet, if successful, this would
mean that the group care facility would be in close proximity to
UCLA's fraternity and sorority row. Since many children in
foster care are removed from the home due to the substance abuse
of their parent(s), this raises concerns as to whether it is
appropriate to place foster youth in a group care facility that
is close to a hyper-social college environment; one where access
to alcohol and controlled substances are far greater than if
placed in a more neutrally located facility. Foster youth are
already at-risk; it does not seem feasible to put them at
greater risk due to the surrounding environment of the facility.
According to the author, the purpose of focusing on modifying
the THPP program was to avoid pursuing an exemption to the
current moratorium on the licensing of new group homes, which
was established by the 2012 child welfare budget trailer bill.
This is problematic for several reasons. First, the proposal
seeks to build upon a program that currently presents a number
of questions as to whether the THPP is appropriate for the model
they are seeking to operate. The THPP model is intended for
independent living, however, as proposed the pilot would operate
more like a group home with a structured and intensive
residential program. Secondly, as currently written the bill
proposes to allow foster youth aged 14 through 21 to co-mingle
in the program. This is contrary to current statutory
allowances, which prescribe that minor dependents and nonminor
dependents, those who are between the ages of 18 and 21, should
not live together in a group care setting. Lastly, by focusing
on THPP as a means to implement the pilot, the bill bypasses
many group home requirements that have been established to
ensure the health and safety of its residents. The modified
THPP in this bill, because of its independent structure, would
lack many of those group home protections.
Additionally, as indicated in the bill, the pilot program would
be described as an "academy," however, it would not be academic
in nature nor does it establish a boarding school structure. An
academy is generally considered to be a secondary or
post-secondary school that provides special instruction. As
proposed, the bill establishes a group care program, not an
academy. Further, the bill as currently written lacks
substantial detail regarding what types of services are provided
to the youth in the program. Because it seeks to operate a
AB 1766
Page O
group care model within a modified THPP, it does not have to
comply with existing state group home laws and regulations;
rather it establishes a completely new out-of-home group care
model under THPP. This is concerning because it would only be
required to comply with the less stringent programmatic
requirements associated with the independent nature of a THPP,
rather than the more structured group home requirements. It is
also unclear how the program will provide for the youth during
holidays, spring and summer break, and other times when the
youth will not be in school. The bill also exempts the pilot
program from having to adhere with current THPP requirements if
they are deemed to be in conflict with the pilot. As written,
this could be construed to allow the program to be exempt from
most requirements as the program is structured as a group care
program and not an independent living placement.
In contrast to the sponsors' own statement on the purpose of the
program, including that "the Academy will enhance the
possibilities of reunification or permanent adoption for our
students, because they will visibly improve academically,
behaviorally and in the caliber of their hopes and dreams," they
further state that, under the program, if a foster youth is
"adopted or reunified during the four years of high school
(they) will be offered enrollment in the parallel BGA summer
academy." This creates ambiguity as to the purpose and goals of
the pilot program. On the one hand, the program would be
tailored towards making reunification or permanency for foster
youth a greater reality, but on the other, once permanency is
achieved, they would be removed from the program and placed into
the summer program, thus cancelling out the purpose of improving
the youth's opportunity of becoming qualified to go to college.
Additionally, it is contrary to the intent of Section 48853.5 of
the Education Code established by AB 1933 (Brownley) Chapter
563, Statutes of 2010, which extended the right of foster youth
to remain in their school of origin from the remainder of the
school year (after changing residential placement) to the
duration of the jurisdiction of the court.
Lastly, the bill lacks details on whether foster youth placed
into the program will attend the same high school or whether the
school should be required to provide additional supportive
services for the foster youth. Although implicit in the bill,
it does not provide specific protections that the youth will be
able to attend their school of enrollment or whether they should
be removed and transferred to a school in closer proximity to
AB 1766
Page P
the residential component. It is also unclear on what type of
relationship would be established between the program and the
local educational agency, whether it comes with individualized
services and supports tailored to the unique needs of each
foster youth, and whether transportation services would be
provided if the foster youth attend the same or different
schools.
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS:
Due to the number of issues with the bill, committee staff
recommends substantially amending the bill to align the program
within existing programmatic allowances. Specifically, the
amendments would do the following:
1)Clarify that the pilot may be awarded to any county CWA that
enters into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with a public
university, county mental health department and local
educational agency to operate the pilot.
2)Require the MOU to include financial and programmatic
commitments from each entity required to sign the MOU, which
shall include specific roles and responsibilities for each
entity.
3)Clarify eligibility for the program to be limited to only
those foster youth who are no longer receiving family
reunification services and have been in group care for three
consecutive years.
4)Clarify that DSS shall select the local county that will
operate the pilot.
5)Clarify that the pilot shall operate as a THPP within the
current structure of the THPP program, thus limiting the
residential component to foster youth who are 16 and 17 years
of age.
6)Provide that the pilot ensure the continued provision of
permanency services, such as adoption and guardianship
services.
7)Provide that a youth who reaches permanency may remain in the
pilot if agreed to by the youth and the youth's parent(s),
guardian(s), or adoptive parent(s).
AB 1766
Page Q
8)Provide that supportive services may continue if the youth
becomes a nonminor as specified in his or her case plan.
9)Provides that 14 and 15 year old foster youth may participate
in the program through the provision of wraparound services
and supports, but may not be placed into the residential
component.
10)Provide a clearer timeline for the implementation and
termination of the pilot.
11)Delete the authority for the funding allocation rate to be
160 percent of the current THPP rate, and clarify that any
additional costs beyond the current THPP rate are borne by the
county CWA or supported by philanthropic funding.
12)Require DSS to conduct an interim evaluation report, in
addition to the already required final evaluation report that
is required to be submitted to the Legislature.
AB 1766
Page R
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
First Star
Juvenile Court Judges of California
Housing California
University of California (UC)
Opposition
Youth Law Center
Analysis Prepared by : Chris Reefe / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089