BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 12 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair SB 12 (Beall) - As Amended June 2, 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Human Services |Vote:|7 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | |Judiciary | |10 - 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill expands eligibility for extended foster care to specified nonminors who have crossed over from the dependency system to the delinquency system. Specifically, this bill: 1)Permits a nonminor between the ages of 18 and 21 to petition SB 12 Page 2 the court to resume dependency jurisdiction or assume transition jurisdiction over him or her, provided the youth: a) Has been adjudged a ward of the court; b) Was subject to an order for foster care placement at the time the petition to adjudge him or her a ward of the court was filed; and c) Was held in secure confinement at 18 years of age. FISCAL EFFECT: 1)Potentially significant ongoing annual costs of approximately $550,000 (GF/Federal Fund) to provide extended foster care benefits to for up to three years to additional probation youth between the ages of 18 and 21 who are in secure confinement on their 18th birthday. A portion of these costs could be eligible for federal reimbursement to the extent the State submits an amendment to its Title IV-E state plan that is approved. 2)Potentially significant increase in non-reimbursable (Proposition 30) local probation supervision costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (GF) annually to the extent nonminors provided extended foster care benefits continue under the supervision of probation departments. 3)Unknown, but potentially significant future cost savings (GF) to the extent the provision of extended foster care benefits SB 12 Page 3 to this population of nonminors results in improved long-term outcomes and reduced future involvement in the criminal justice system. 4)Potential Proposition 30 implications to the extent this bill creates a new mandate for counties that must be funded with General Fund dollars. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. Federal and state actions in recent years to extend foster care services to nonminors ages 18 to 21 recognized the need to support youth as they transition from the juvenile dependency and juvenile delinquency systems to adulthood. Since the California Fostering Connections to Success Act was passed in 2010, additional pieces of legislation have been adopted to further realize the intent of that bill. This bill seeks to continue this effort with regards to a small population of crossover youth who were adjudged a ward of the court and subject to an order for foster care placement at the time this adjudication took place, but who were held in secure confinement on their 18th birthday. This last condition - that a youth was in secure confinement per the juvenile delinquency system on their 18th birthday - can currently render him or her ineligible to receive extended foster care services and benefits, because he or she is typically no longer subject to an order for a foster care placement on his or her 18th birthday. This bill seeks to include this segment of youth in those eligible for extended foster care benefits. 2)Background. Current law provides opportunities for the court to resume jurisdiction of a former nonminor dependent or ward of the court for specified reasons. In these cases, a youth who was receiving foster care services when they turned 18 may SB 12 Page 4 opt to re-enter foster care so that he or she may remain in a healthy and safe environment and draw down services to help him or her transition into adulthood. In addition, the law specifically allows a former foster youth, whose adoptive parent or guardian dies before the youth turns 21, to re-enter as a nonminor dependent if he or she meets the specified criteria. Last year, this same opportunity was added for nonminor dependents who have reached permanency through permanent guardianship or adoption, but whose adoptive parent or guardian then fail to provide ongoing support while the youth is between the age of 18 and 21. The number of youth that would be impacted by this bill is assumed to be relatively small. However, data on the exact number are not readily available due to the multiple factors that need to be considered in identifying this population. According to the Department of Social Services, there are approximately 300 to 400 youth in secure confinement between the ages of 18 and 20. However, of that number, only those youth who were in secure confinement on their 18th birthday, don't live in a dual-jurisdiction county with a protocol that already makes them eligible for extended foster care, meet all additional eligibility requirements, and choose to opt into extended foster care, will be impacted by this bill. Reasonable estimates suggest this number will be less than 100 youth. 3)Proposition 30. Proposition 30 was passed by the voters in November 2012, and among other provisions, eliminated any potential mandate funding liability for any new program or higher level of service mandated on the counties related to realigned programs, including child welfare services and foster care. Rather, legislation enacted after September 30, 2012, that has an overall effect of increasing the costs already borne by a local agency for programs or levels of service mandated by realignment only apply to local agencies SB 12 Page 5 to the extent that the state provides annual funding for the cost increase. Local agencies are not obligated to provide programs or levels of service required by legislation above the level for which funding has been provided. 4)Related Current Legislation. AB 885 (Lopez), 2015, would have facilitated former foster youth re-entering extended foster care upon disruption of their permanent relationships. It was held on this Committee's Suspense File. 5)Prior Legislation. a) AB 2454 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 769, Statutes of 2014, authorized former nonminor dependents under the age of 21, as specified, to petition the court to re-enter foster care if their guardian or adoptive parent is no longer providing them with support. b) AB 787 (Stone), Chapter 487, Statutes of 2013, made technical and clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. c) AB 1712 (Beall), Chapter 846, Statutes of 2012, made technical and clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. d) AB 212 (Beall), Chapter 459, Statues of 2011, made technical and clarifying changes to the California Fostering Connections to Success Act. e) AB 12 (Beall), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2010, the "California Fostering Connections to Success Act," conformed state law to federal requirements to revise and expand programs and funding for certain foster and adopted SB 12 Page 6 children. Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081