Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of certain categories of pupils, known as unduplicated pupils, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law includes among unduplicated pupils, a pupil who is classified as an English learner, eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, or a foster youth, as defined, and requires county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to submit and report data relating to these pupils.

This bill, no later than the 202021 fiscal year, would include in that definition of foster youth a dependent child of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court in accordance with the tribes law, provided the child would also meet one of the descriptions of specified existing law describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. To the extent this provision would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools in relation to submitting and reporting data relating to these pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education and the State Department of Social Services to enter into a memorandum of understanding on or before February 1, 2014, that requires the State Department of Social Services, at least once per week, to share disaggregated information related to foster youth with the State Department of Education.

This bill would exempt the State Department of Social Services from collecting or sharing specified information relating to a dependent child of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization as described above.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of certain categories of pupils, known as unduplicated pupils, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law includes among unduplicated pupils, a pupil who is classified as an English learner, eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, or a foster youth, as defined, and requires county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to submit and report data relating to these pupils.

This bill, no later than the 202021 fiscal year, would include in that definition of foster youth a dependent child of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court in accordance with the tribes law, provided the child would also meet one of the descriptions of specified existing law describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. To the extent this provision would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools in relation to submitting and reporting data relating to these pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education and the State Department of Social Services to enter into a memorandum of understanding on or before February 1, 2014, that requires the State Department of Social Services, at least once per week, to share disaggregated information related to foster youth with the State Department of Education.

This bill would exempt the State Department of Social Services from collecting or sharing specified information relating to a dependent child of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization as described above.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of certain categories of pupils, known as unduplicated pupils, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law includes among unduplicated pupils, a pupil who is classified as an English learner, eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, or a foster youth, as defined, and requires county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to submit and report data relating to these pupils.

This bill, commencing with the 201920 no later than the 202021 fiscal year, would include in that definition of foster youth a dependent child of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court in accordance with the tribes law, provided the child would also meet one of the descriptions of specified existing law describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. To the extent this provision would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools in relation to submitting and reporting data relating to these pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of certain categories of pupils, known as unduplicated pupils, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law includes among unduplicated pupils, a pupil who is classified as an English learner, eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, or a foster youth, as defined, and requires county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to submit and report data relating to these pupils.

This bill, commencing with the 201920 fiscal year, would include in that definition of foster youth a dependent child who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of a court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization. organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court in accordance with the tribes law, provided the child would also meet one of the descriptions of specified existing law describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court. To the extent this provision would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools in relation to submitting and reporting data relating to these pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law establishes a public school financing system that requires state funding for county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to be calculated pursuant to a local control funding formula, as specified. Existing law requires funding pursuant to the local control funding formula to include, in addition to a base grant, supplemental and concentration grant add-ons that are based on the percentage of certain categories of pupils, known as unduplicated pupils, served by the county superintendent of schools, school district, or charter school. Existing law includes among unduplicated pupils, a pupil who is classified as an English learner, eligible for a free or reduced-price meal, or a foster youth, as defined, and requires county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools to submit and report data relating to these pupils.

This bill, commencing with the 201920 fiscal year, would include in that definition of foster youth a child who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization. To the extent this provision would impose additional duties on county superintendents of schools, school districts, and charter schools in relation to submitting and reporting data relating to these pupils, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1962

Author:(Wood)

As Amended Ver:May 14, 2018

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: ED.

SUMMARY: Amends the definition of foster youth for Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) purposes by including a student who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of an Indian tribe, as a result of which the student would generate the same additional LCFF funding other foster youth receive.

The Senate amendments change the starting date from 2019-20 to 2020-21 and clarify that the State Department of Social Service is not required to include information on foster youth in Indian tribes in its report to the California Department of Education.

EXISTING LAW: Establishes the LCFF, which provides funding to local education agencies partly on the basis on the number of students in foster care.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. By expanding the definition of foster youth to include students under the placement and care of an Indian tribe for purposes of generating the same increased amounts of LCFF funding that other foster youth receive, this bill could result additional Proposition 98 General Fund costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars each year.
2. This bill would also result in General Fund costs of approximately $62,000 each year for the California Department of Education to make the necessary changes in the state's data system to track this foster youth population.

COMMENTS:

School districts receive the bulk of their funding under the LCFF based on average daily attendance in four grade spans, with each grade span having a unique base rate. The K-3 and high school base rates are increased to recognize the costs associated with class size reduction in the very early grades and career technical education offerings in high school. The LCFF also provides additional funds for particular student groups. Specifically, each English learner, low-income and foster youth student in a district generates an additional 20% of the qualifying student's grade span base rate. Districts whose English learner, low-income, and foster youth student populations exceed 55% of their enrollment receive an additional 50% of the adjusted base grant for each student above the 55% threshold. For the purposes of generating supplemental and concentration funding, a district's student count is based on a three-year rolling average, and students that meet more than one category (e.g. low-income and foster youth) are counted only once.

Some school districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law. However, these students are not recognized by state law as foster youth for purposes of generating LCFF funds, unlike other foster youth students unless they are also identified as low-income. While the CDE projects that the new definition proposed by this measure could yield a potential increase of up to 500 students for LCFF purposes, it is likely that many of these students are low income and may already be included. But in some instances, they may not be identified as low income because the individuals they are placed with may not complete the necessary paperwork to certify the student's low-income status.

This bill changes the definition of "foster youth" for state funding and accountability purposes by adding the following, effective no later than the 2020-21 fiscal year: a dependent child of the court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court pursuant to the tribal court's jurisdiction in accordance with the tribe's law, provided that the child would also meet one of the descriptions in Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court.

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0004324

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1962

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/6/18

AYES: Allen, Wilk, Galgiani, Leyva, Pan, Vidak

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/16/18

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/26/18 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes for local educational agencies (LEAs) under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the LCFF, with per-pupil funding targets adjusted for different student grade levels, and including supplemental funding for LEAs serving students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth. The LCFF replaced almost all sources of state funding for LEAs, including most categorical programs, with general purpose funding including few spending restrictions.

In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013 LCFF legislation established new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals, including but not limited to, how services for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth will be increased in proportion to the additional funding these students generate.

1. Defines, for LCFF and LCAP purposes, “foster youth” as any of the following:
   1. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, whether or not the child has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 319 or 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   2. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 727 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and is in foster care as defined by subdivision (d) of Section 727.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   3. A nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as described in Section 450 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, who satisfies all of the following criteria:
      1. He or she has attained 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement by the juvenile court, and is not more than 19 years of age on or after January 1, 2012, not more than 20 years of age on or after January 1, 2013, and not more than 21 years of age, on or after January 1, 2014, and as described in Section 10103.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
      2. He or she is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization that entered into an agreement pursuant to Section 10553.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
      3. He or she is participating in a transitional independent living case plan pursuant to Section 475(8) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 675), as contained in the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351), as described in Section 11403 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes by adding the following, effective no later than the 2020-21 fiscal year:

1. A dependent child of the court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court pursuant to the tribal court’s jurisdiction in accordance with the tribe’s law, provided that the child would also meet one of the descriptions in Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court.

Comments

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law, and not by the county system. Existing law includes within the definition of foster youth non-minors that have been so designated by an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization, but this excludes students under 18 years of age. Accordingly, these students are not included within the LCFF and do not generate the additional funding that all other foster youth do unless they are also low income.”
2. Components of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). School districts receive the bulk of their funding under the LCFF based on average daily attendance in four grade spans, with each grade span having a unique base rate. Each year, the base rates are increased by a cost–of–living adjustment. The K-3 and high school base rates are further increased to recognize the costs associated with class size reduction in the very early grades and career technical education offerings in high school. The differences among the grade span rates are largely based on historical funding factors, and are intended to recognize the generally higher costs of education at higher grade levels.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides additional funds for particular student groups. Under the formula, each English-learning, low-income, and foster youth student in a district generates an additional 20 percent of the qualifying student’s grade span base rate. Districts whose English-learning, low-income, and foster youth student populations exceed 55 percent of their enrollment receive an additional 50 percent of the adjusted base grant for each student above the 55 percent threshold. For the purposes of generating supplemental and concentration funding, a district’s student count is based on a three-year rolling average, and students that meet more than one category (e.g. low-income and foster youth) are counted only once.

1. Accountability and transparency provisions related to foster youth. In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013 LCFF legislation established new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt LCAPs. Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals in each of the eight state priority areas, which are intended to encompass the key ingredients of high-quality educational programs. The LCAPs must include both district-wide goals and goals for each numerically significant student subgroup in the district. To be numerically significant, a district must have at least 30 students in a subgroup, with the exception of foster youth, for which districts must have at least 15 students. Further, LCAPs must cover how services for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth will be increased in proportion to the additional funding these students generate.
2. Foster youth designations by tribal organizations. As the author states, some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law. These students are not recognized by state law as foster youth for the purposes of LCFF. Consequently, these students only generate additional funding for districts if they are low-income or English-learners. While the vast majority of tribal foster students are low income, there have been cases in which the paperwork necessary to certify low-income status was not completed. The often shorter-term and transitory nature of foster student placements can make paperwork collection difficult, which was the intent of including all other foster youth designations in the original LCFF legislation.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• By expanding the definition of foster youth to include students under the placement and care of an Indian tribe for purposes of generating the same increased amounts of LCFF funding that other foster youth receive, this bill could result additional Proposition 98 General Fund costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars each year.
• This bill would also result in General Fund costs of approximately $62,000 each year for the California Department of Education to make the necessary changes in the state’s data system to track this foster youth population.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/16/18)

California Tribal Business Alliance

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

Small School Districts’ Association

Yurok Tribe

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/18)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0, 4/26/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Fong, Cristina Garcia, Rodriguez

Prepared by:

8/18/18 14:18:54

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 1962 (Wood) - Education finance: local control funding formula: unduplicated pupils: foster youth: dependent child of a tribal court

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes for local educational agencies (LEAs) under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

Fiscal Impact:

• By expanding the definition of foster youth to include students under the placement and care of an Indian tribe for purposes of generating the same increased amounts of LCFF funding that other foster youth receive, this bill could result additional Proposition 98 General Fund costs, likely in the tens of thousands of dollars each year.
• This bill would also result in General Fund costs of approximately $62,000 each year for the California Department of Education to make the necessary changes in the state’s data system to track this foster youth population.

Background:

The LCFF establishes per-pupil funding targets, with adjustments for different student grade levels, and includes supplemental funding for LEAs serving students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth. The LCFF replaced almost all sources of state funding for LEAs, including most categorical programs, with general purpose funding including few spending restrictions.

In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013 LCFF legislation established new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals, including but not limited to, how services for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth will be increased in proportion to the additional funding these students generate.

Existing law defines “foster youth” as any of the following for LCFF and LCAP purposes:

1. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, whether or not the child has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 319 or 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 727 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and is in foster care as defined by subdivision (d) of Section 727.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3. A nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as described in Section 450 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, who satisfies all of the following criteria:
   1. He or she has attained 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement by the juvenile court, and is not more than 19 years of age on or after January 1, 2012, not more than 20 years of age on or after January 1, 2013, and not more than 21 years of age, on or after January 1, 2014, and as described in Section 10103.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   2. He or she is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization that entered into an agreement pursuant to Section 10553.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   3. He or she is participating in a transitional independent living case plan pursuant to Section 475(8) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 675), as contained in the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351), as described in Section 11403 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Proposed Law:

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes by adding the following, effective no later than the 2020-21 fiscal year: a dependent child of the court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court pursuant to the tribal court’s jurisdiction in accordance with the tribe’s law, provided that the child would also meet one of the descriptions in Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court.

Staff Comments:

School districts receive the bulk of their funding under the LCFF based on average daily attendance in four grade spans, with each grade span having a unique base rate. The K-3 and high school base rates are increased to recognize the costs associated with class size reduction in the very early grades and career technical education offerings in high school. The LCFF also provides additional funds for particular student groups. Specifically, each English learner, low-income, and foster youth student in a district generates an additional 20 percent of the qualifying student’s grade span base rate. Districts whose English learner, low-income, and foster youth student populations exceed 55 percent of their enrollment receive an additional 50 percent of the adjusted base grant for each student above the 55 percent threshold. For the purposes of generating supplemental and concentration funding, a district’s student count is based on a three-year rolling average, and students that meet more than one category (e.g. low-income and foster youth) are counted only once.

Some school districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law. However, these students are not recognized by state law as foster youth for purposes of generating LCFF funds, unlike other foster youth students unless they are also identified as low-income. While the CDE projects that the new definition proposed by this measure could yield a potential increase of up to 500 students for LCFF purposes, it is likely that many of these students are low income and may already be included. But in some instances, they may not be identified as low income because the individuals they are placed with may not complete the necessary paperwork to certify the student’s low-income status.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Benjamin Allen, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 6, 2018

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes for local educational agencies (LEAs) under the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).

BACKGROUND

In 2013, the LCFF was enacted. The LCFF establishes per-pupil funding targets, with adjustments for different student grade levels, and includes supplemental funding for LEAs serving students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth. The LCFF replaced almost all sources of state funding for LEAs, including most categorical programs, with general purpose funding including few spending restrictions.

In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013 LCFF legislation established new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals, including but not limited to, how services for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth will be increased in proportion to the additional funding these students generate.

For LCFF and LCAP purposes, “foster youth” is defined as any of the following:

1. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, whether or not the child has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 319 or 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 727 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and is in foster care as defined by subdivision (d) of Section 727.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3. A nonminor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as described in Section 450 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, who satisfies all of the following criteria:
   1. He or she has attained 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement by the juvenile court, and is not more than 19 years of age on or after January 1, 2012, not more than 20 years of age on or after January 1, 2013, and not more than 21 years of age, on or after January 1, 2014, and as described in Section 10103.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   2. He or she is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization that entered into an agreement pursuant to Section 10553.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
   3. He or she is participating in a transitional independent living case plan pursuant to Section 475(8) of the federal Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 675), as contained in the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351), as described in Section 11403 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

ANALYSIS

This bill changes the definition of “foster youth” for state funding and accountability purposes by adding the following, effective no later than the 2020-21 fiscal year:

1. A dependent child of the court of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization who is the subject of a petition filed in the tribal court pursuant to the tribal court’s jurisdiction in accordance with the tribe’s law, provided that the child would also meet one of the descriptions in Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code describing when a child may be adjudged a dependent child of the juvenile court.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law, and not by the county system. Existing law includes within the definition of foster youth non-minors that have been so designated by an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization, but this excludes students under 18 years of age. Accordingly, these students are not included within the LCFF and do not generate the additional funding that all other foster youth do unless they are also low income.”
2. Components of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). School districts receive the bulk of their funding under the LCFF based on average daily attendance in four grade spans, with each grade span having a unique base rate. Each year, the base rates are increased by a cost–of–living adjustment. The K-3 and high school base rates are further increased to recognize the costs associated with class size reduction in the very early grades and career technical education offerings in high school. The differences among the grade span rates are largely based on historical funding factors, and are intended to recognize the generally higher costs of education at higher grade levels.

The Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides additional funds for particular student groups. Under the formula, each English-learning, low-income, and foster youth student in a district generates an additional 20 percent of the qualifying student’s grade span base rate. Districts whose English-learning, low-income, and foster youth student populations exceed 55 percent of their enrollment receive an additional 50 percent of the adjusted base grant for each student above the 55 percent threshold. For the purposes of generating supplemental and concentration funding, a district’s student count is based on a three-year rolling average, and students that meet more than one category (e.g. low-income and foster youth) are counted only once.

1. Accountability and transparency provisions related to foster youth. In addition to creating a new funding formula, the 2013 LCFF legislation established new rules relating to school district transparency and accountability. Specifically, under the new rules, districts are required to adopt Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs). Each LCAP must include a school district’s annual goals in each of the eight state priority areas, which are intended to encompass the key ingredients of high-quality educational programs. The LCAPs must include both district-wide goals and goals for each numerically significant student subgroup in the district. To be numerically significant, a district must have at least 30 students in a subgroup, with the exception of foster youth, for which districts must have at least 15 students. Further, LCAPs must cover how services for students who are low-income, English learners, or foster youth will be increased in proportion to the additional funding these students generate.
2. Foster youth designations by tribal organizations. As the author states, some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law. These students are not recognized by state law as foster youth for the purposes of LCFF. Consequently, these students only generate additional funding for districts if they are low-income or English-learners. While the vast majority of tribal foster students are low income, there have been cases in which the paperwork necessary to certify low-income status was not completed. The often shorter-term and transitory nature of foster student placements can make paperwork collection difficult, which was the intent of including all other foster youth designations in the original LCFF legislation.

SUPPORT

California Tribal Business Alliance

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

Small School Districts’ Association

Yurok Tribe

OPPOSITION

None received

-- END --

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1962

Author:(Wood) – As Amended Ver:April 3, 2018

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY: This bill amends the definition of foster youth for Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) purposes by including a student who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of an Indian tribe such that the student would generate the same additional LCFF funding other foster youth receive. It specifies this change shall take effect beginning with the 2019-20 fiscal year.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Ongoing Proposition 98 General Fund (GF) costs, likely in the low tens of thousands of dollars annually, to provide supplemental LCFF to newly identified foster youth. Funding likely would increase by about $1,500 per student. It is unlikely that more than 50 students would be identified, because most foster youth already generate supplemental LCFF because they are low income, as described in more detail below.
2. One-time and ongoing GF costs for the CDE of approximately $62,000, based on new workload for staff to make the necessary changes in state’s data system that stores foster youth information.

COMMENTS:

1. LCFF Supplemental and Concentration Grants. Existing law requires state funding for school districts to be calculated pursuant to LCFF. School districts receive a per-student base grant amount (roughly $7,000, depending on their grade level) and a supplemental grant of 20% of the base grant and for each student who is considered low income, an English learner, or a foster youth. School districts receive an additional concentration grant of 50% of the base grant for low income, English learner, or foster youth above a certain threshold (55% of district enrollment).
2. Tribal Foster Student. Some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law. These students are not recognized by state law as foster youth for the purposes of LCFF. Accordingly, these students may not generate the additional LCFF funding that all other foster students do unless they also are identified as a low-income student. While the vast majority of tribal foster students are low income, in a few cases, they may not be identified as such because the individuals they are placed with are required to file paperwork certifying the student’s low-income status. The often shorter-term and transitory nature of foster student placements can make paperwork collection difficult. Consequently, these students may not be identified for additional funding.
3. Timing Issues. The CDE notes timing issues with this bill. Specifically, they indicate that they could not make the necessary change to their data systems in time to comply with the 2019-20 fiscal year implementation requirement of this bill. CDE indicates that because of other work orders, the earliest any changes could be made to the system is the 2020-2021 fiscal year.

Analysis Prepared by: Natasha Collins / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 21, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Patrick O'Donnell, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1962 (

Author:Wood) – As Introduced Ver:January 30, 2018

SUBJECT: Education finance: local control funding formula: unduplicated pupils: foster youth: Indian tribe placement

SUMMARY: Amends the definition of foster youth for LCFF purposes by including a child who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of an Indian tribe. Specifically, this bill:

1. Provides that a child who is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization shall be included within definition of foster care for purposes of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
2. States that this change shall take effect beginning with the 2019-20 fiscal year.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the LCFF, which provides additional funds to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools on the basis of students who are low income, English learners, or foster youth.
2. Defines "foster youth" to mean any of the following:
   1. A child who is the subject of a petition filed pursuant to specified provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code, whether or not the child has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court pursuant to Section 319 or 361 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
   2. A child who has been removed from his or her home by the juvenile court and is in foster care as defined by the Welfare and Institutions Code; or
   3. A non-minor under the transition jurisdiction of the juvenile court, who satisfies all of the following criteria:
      1. Has attained 18 years of age while under an order of foster care placement by the juvenile court, and is not more than 19 years of age on or after January 1, 2012, not more than 20 years of age on or after January 1, 2013, and not more than 21 years of age, on or after January 1, 2014, and as described in Section 10103.5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code;
      2. Is in foster care under the placement and care responsibility of the county welfare department, county probation department, Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization that entered into an agreement with the Director of Human Services; and
      3. Is participating in a transitional independent living case plan, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Legislative Counsel has keyed this a state-mandated local program

COMMENTS: According to the author's office, some districts enroll students who have been designated as foster youth by a tribal organization pursuant to its sovereign authority under federal law, and not by the county system. Existing law includes within the definition of foster youth non-minors that have been so designated by an Indian tribe, consortium of tribes, or tribal organization, but this excludes students under 18 years of age. Accordingly, these students are not included within the LCFF and do not generate the additional funding that all other foster youth do unless they are also low income.

To be designated as a foster youth, either by a juvenile court or by a tribe (for non-minors), an individual must meet specified statutory criteria. As written, this bill does not require that these same criteria be applied to the designation of minor Indian youth as foster youth. As a result, a tribe could apply a more liberal definition that would allow a school district to receive additional funding for students that do not meet the definition of foster youth for all other school districts. To prevent this, staff recommends that the bill be amended to require tribes to use existing Welfare and Institutions Code criteria for designating an individual as a foster youth (for LCFF purposes only) in order to ensure consistency across jurisdictions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District

Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians

Opposition

None received

Analysis Prepared by: Rick Pratt / ED. / (916) 319-2087