Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services (department) and county welfare departments to establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services available in each county, as specified.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing family preservation services, which may include counseling, mental health treatment, and transportation, among other things. Existing law requires an authorized participating county to provide specific programs of direct services based on individual family needs, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county to establish family preservation programs that serve one or more geographic areas of the county, subject to the approval of the department. Existing law requires that the services selected by a participating county be reasonable and meritorious, as specified. Existing law prescribes standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful.

This bill, the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, would also require that those services have a track record of helping families, have their outcomes tracked and reported, and be designed to eradicate the situation that necessitated intervention. The bill would require, as of January 1, 2026, and to be implemented by each county on the next grant cycle or service provider selection cycle after January 1, 2026, that each service provider, at the time the provider is selected by a participating county, provide services that are reasonable, meritorious, and that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2026, service providers to be reviewed for reasonableness, merit, and whether they demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement no less than every 3 years after selection. The bill would include, as of January 1, 2026, additional standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Under existing law, the program in each county is deemed successful if certain standards are met, including that at least 60% of the children receiving services remain at home one year, and 2 years, after services are terminated.

This bill would add as a standard that, during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of specified circumstances, including removal from the physical custody of their parents or guardians. The bill would also add, among other standards, 2 years after termination of the services, that no more than 10% of the children meet any of those circumstances.

Existing law requires the Office of Child Abuse Prevention within the department to require counties to submit annual reports on program services and children and families served.

This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2026, that the annual reports include certain information to demonstrate whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful. The bill would require the department to post the annual report to its internet website within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services (department) and county welfare departments to establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services available in each county, as specified.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing family preservation services, which may include counseling, mental health treatment, and transportation, among other things. Existing law requires an authorized participating county to provide specific programs of direct services based on individual family needs, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county to establish family preservation programs that serve one or more geographic areas of the county, subject to the approval of the department. Existing law requires that the services selected by a participating county be reasonable and meritorious, as specified. Existing law prescribes standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful.

This bill, the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, would also require that those services have a track record of helping families, have their outcomes tracked and reported, and be designed to eradicate the situation that necessitated intervention. The bill would require, as of January 1, 2026, and to be implemented by each county on the next grant cycle or service provider selection cycle after January 1, 2026, that each service provider, at the time the provider is selected by a participating county, provide services that are reasonable, meritorious, and that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2026, service providers to be reviewed for reasonableness, merit, and whether they demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement no less than every 3 years after selection. The bill would include, as of January 1, 2026, additional standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Under existing law, the program in each county is deemed successful if certain standards are met, including that at least 60% of the children receiving services remain at home one year, and 2 years, after services are terminated.

This bill would add as a standard that, during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of specified circumstances, including removal from the physical custody of their parents or guardians. The bill would also add, among other standards, 2 years after termination of the services, that no more than 10% of the children meet any of those circumstances.

Existing law requires the Office of Child Abuse Prevention within the department to require counties to submit annual reports on program services and children and families served.

This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2026, that the annual reports include certain information to demonstrate whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful. The bill would require the department to post the annual report to its internet website within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services (department) and county welfare departments to establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services available in each county, as specified.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing family preservation services, which may include counseling, mental health treatment, and transportation, among other things. Existing law requires an authorized participating county to provide specific programs of direct services based on individual family needs, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county to establish family preservation programs that serve one or more geographic areas of the county, subject to the approval of the department. Existing law requires that the services selected by a participating county be reasonable and meritorious, as specified. Existing law prescribes standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful.

This bill, the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, would also require that those services have a track record of helping families, have their outcomes tracked and reported, and be designed to eradicate the situation that necessitated intervention. The bill would require the service providers selected by a participating county to be reasonable, meritorious, cost effective, and to have a documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or provide services with the same documented success, which is required to be reviewed at the time of the initial selection and no less than every 3 years thereafter. The bill would require, as of January 1, 2026, and to be implemented by each county on the next grant cycle or service provider selection cycle after January 1, 2026, that each service provider, at the time the provider is selected by a participating county, provide services that are reasonable, meritorious, and that demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2026, service providers to be reviewed for reasonableness, merit, and whether they demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reduce the length of stay in out-of-home placement no less than every 3 years after selection. The bill would include, as of January 1, 2026, additional standards for services provided by each county to be deemed successful. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Under existing law, the program in each county is deemed successful if certain standards are met, including that at least 60% of the children receiving services remain at home one year, and 2 years, after services are terminated.

This bill would add as a standard that, during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of specified circumstances, including removal from the physical custody of their parents or guardians. The bill would also add, among other standards, 2 years after termination of the services, that no more than 10% of the children meet any of those circumstances.

Existing law requires the Office of Child Abuse Prevention within the department to require counties to submit annual reports on program services and children and families served.

This bill would require require, commencing January 1, 2026, that the annual reports include certain information to demonstrate whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful. The bill would require the department to post the annual report to its internet website within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services (department) and county welfare departments to establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services available in each county, as specified.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing family preservation services, which may include counseling, mental health treatment, and transportation, among other things. Existing law requires an authorized participating county to provide specific programs of direct services based on individual family needs, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county to establish family preservation programs that serve one or more geographic areas of the county, subject to the approval of the department. Existing law requires that the services selected by a participating county be reasonable and meritorious, as specified.

This bill, the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, would also require that those services be evidence based, as defined, and culturally competent, as provided through qualified professionals. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions. The bill would require the department, by January 1, 2026, to define, by regulation, the terms culturally competent and qualified professional. have a track record of helping families, have their outcomes tracked and reported, and be designed to eradicate the situation that necessitated intervention. The bill would require the service providers selected by a participating county to be reasonable, meritorious, cost effective, and to have a documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or provide services with the same documented success, which is required to be reviewed at the time of the initial selection and no less than every 3 years thereafter. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Under existing law, the program in each county is deemed successful if certain standards are met, including that at least 60% of the children receiving services remain at home one year, and 2 years, after services are terminated.

This bill would add as a standard that, during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of specified circumstances, including removal from the physical custody of their parents or guardians. The bill would also add, among other standards, 2 years after termination of the services, that no more than 10% of the children meet any of those circumstances.

Existing law requires the Office of Child Abuse Prevention within the department to require counties to submit annual reports on program services and children and families served.

This bill would require that the annual reports include certain information, including, among other things, a description of how a countys contracts with providers ensure minimum qualifications. information to demonstrate whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful. The bill would require the department to post the annual report to its internet website within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services (department) and county welfare departments to establish and support a public system of statewide child welfare services available in each county, as specified.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing family preservation services, which may include counseling, mental health treatment, and transportation, among other things. Existing law requires an authorized participating county to provide specific programs of direct services based on individual family needs, as specified. Existing law authorizes a county to establish family preservation programs that serve one or more geographic areas of the county, subject to the approval of the department. Existing law requires that the services selected by a participating county be reasonable and meritorious, as specified.

This bill, the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act, would also require that those services be evidence based, as defined, and culturally competent, as provided through qualified professionals. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions. The bill would require the department, by January 1, 2026, to define, by regulation, the terms culturally competent and qualified professional. The bill would make related findings and declarations.

Under existing law, the program in each county is deemed successful if certain standards are met, including that at least 60% of the children receiving services remain at home one year, and 2 years, after services are terminated.

This bill would add as a standard that, during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of specified circumstances, including removal from the physical custody of their parents or guardians. The bill would also add, among other standards, 2 years after termination of the services, that no more than 10% of the children meet any of those circumstances.

Existing law requires the Office of Child Abuse Prevention within the department to require counties to submit annual reports on program services and children and families served.

This bill would require that the annual reports include certain information, including, among other things, a description of how a countys contracts with providers ensure minimum qualifications. The bill would require the department to post the annual report to its internet website within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 3145

Author:(Bryan and Hart)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act to require providers of family preservation services to demonstrate the outcomes of their services. Requires, commencing January 1, 2026, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to post an annual report from a county containing specified data regarding whether the providers' services were deemed successful, within 30 business days of receipt.

Senate Amendments

Make technical changes and delay implementation of specified provisions until January 1, 2026.

COMMENTS

Background: Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child's welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents' custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. Permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.

Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker's petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.

At the dispositional hearing the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance abuse counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.

Reunification Services. When a child is removed from their parents' custody and it is determined by the courts and in speaking with the child's social worker that the child would ultimately benefit from being returned or reunited with the family, the court may order reunification services in order to address the underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child's removal in the first place. Reunification services include, but are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, substance use disorder treatment, respite care, parent support groups, home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order to facilitate a child's reunification with their parents. For children under three years of age, current law allows six months of reunification services; and, for children over three years of age, 12 months of reunification services are to be offered. Extensions of services are available if the court determines that there is substantial probability that a child will return to their parents' custody within the extended time period.

In the News. A January 4, 2023, article featured in the Los Angeles Times entitled Parenting classes are routinely ordered in child abuse cases. California isn't ensuring they work. (Mackenzie Mays), detailed cases of parents who were ordered to participate in parenting classes to try and reunify with their children as a result of allegations of neglect and abuse, and whose children later died at the hands of their parents. The article concluded that these court-ordered classes go largely unregulated and that judges are not focused on the quality of the parenting classes. These services are meant to assist in rehabilitating parents and increasing their chances of successfully and safely reunifying with their child, but it is clear that these classes do not keep every parent from continuing the abuse that brought them in contact with the child welfare services system.

The provisions of this bill seek to ensure that parents involved in the child welfare services system are receiving meaningful help while they attempt to reunify with their child by:

1. Requiring service providers to have demonstrated success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement;
2. Requiring each service provider's outcomes at the time of the initial selection, and no less than every three years thereafter, to be reviewed;
3. Adding to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful; and,
4. Requiring additional reporting requirements on outcomes and providing transparency by posting the reports publicly.

According to the Author and Sponsors, these services can cost thousands of dollars per course, and in fiscal year 2022-23, San Diego County alone spent $1.63 million on child and family well-being services, representing over a fifth of their Health and Human Services budget.

Equity Implications: Research has indicated that the majority of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below the federal poverty line, are overrepresented by certain racial and ethnic groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these families are already facing enormous barriers to reunify with their children. The provisions of this bill seek to ensure services designed to help them safely reunify with their children have accountability regarding the qualifications as well as their efficacy so that a parent and child can be offered services designed to safely reunify.

According to the Author

"When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent's completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. [This bill] requires counties to track each service provider's success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry."

Arguments in Support

According to Black Women Organized for Political Action, "If the services being provided to parents are of poor or untested quality, then a parent completing the offered services satisfactorily would not actually offer assurance that it is safe to return a child to the care of their parents. Likewise, the opinion of a poor or untested service provider that a parent has been unsuccessful in meeting the goals set by a service provider is not, in fact, a sound basis for forever severing a child from their parents.

"A troubling investigative report published by The Los Angeles Times reveals that we have no factual basis for concluding that the millions of dollars we spend on services to help families reunify with their children actually help those families. Nor do we have any factual basis for concluding that when a parent successfully completes court-ordered services, it is predictably safe to return a child to the parent's care. . . Our families and children deserve basic due diligence in tracking the quality of the services we pay for to help them."

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, the April 16, 2024, version of this bill would result in negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 5-0-2

YES: Lee, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Mathis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Atkins, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Durazo, Eggman, Glazer, Gonzalez, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Seyarto, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0004895

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 3145

Author:(Bryan and Hart)

As Amended Ver:August 23, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act to require providers of family preservation services to demonstrate the outcomes of their services. Requires, commencing January 1, 2026, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to post an annual report from a county containing specified data regarding whether the providers' services were deemed successful, within 30 business days of receipt.

Senate Amendments

Make technical changes and delay implementation of specified provisions until January 1, 2026.

COMMENTS

Background: Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child's welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents' custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. Permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.

Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker's petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.

At the dispositional hearing the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance abuse counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.

Reunification Services. When a child is removed from their parents' custody and it is determined by the courts and in speaking with the child's social worker that the child would ultimately benefit from being returned or reunited with the family, the court may order reunification services in order to address the underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child's removal in the first place. Reunification services include, but are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, substance use disorder treatment, respite care, parent support groups, home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order to facilitate a child's reunification with their parents. For children under three years of age, current law allows six months of reunification services; and, for children over three years of age, 12 months of reunification services are to be offered. Extensions of services are available if the court determines that there is substantial probability that a child will return to their parents' custody within the extended time period.

In the News. A January 4, 2023, article featured in the Los Angeles Times entitled Parenting classes are routinely ordered in child abuse cases. California isn't ensuring they work. (Mackenzie Mays), detailed cases of parents who were ordered to participate in parenting classes to try and reunify with their children as a result of allegations of neglect and abuse, and whose children later died at the hands of their parents. The article concluded that these court-ordered classes go largely unregulated and that judges are not focused on the quality of the parenting classes. These services are meant to assist in rehabilitating parents and increasing their chances of successfully and safely reunifying with their child, but it is clear that these classes do not keep every parent from continuing the abuse that brought them in contact with the child welfare services system.

The provisions of this bill seek to ensure that parents involved in the child welfare services system are receiving meaningful help while they attempt to reunify with their child by:

1. Requiring service providers to have demonstrated success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement;
2. Requiring each service provider's outcomes at the time of the initial selection, and no less than every three years thereafter, to be reviewed;
3. Adding to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful; and,
4. Requiring additional reporting requirements on outcomes and providing transparency by posting the reports publicly.

According to the Author and Sponsors, these services can cost thousands of dollars per course, and in fiscal year 2022-23, San Diego County alone spent $1.63 million on child and family well-being services, representing over a fifth of their Health and Human Services budget.

Equity Implications: Research has indicated that the majority of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below the federal poverty line, are overrepresented by certain racial and ethnic groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these families are already facing enormous barriers to reunify with their children. The provisions of this bill seek to ensure services designed to help them safely reunify with their children have accountability regarding the qualifications as well as their efficacy so that a parent and child can be offered services designed to safely reunify.

According to the Author

"When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent's completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. [This bill] requires counties to track each service provider's success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry."

Arguments in Support

According to Black Women Organized for Political Action, "If the services being provided to parents are of poor or untested quality, then a parent completing the offered services satisfactorily would not actually offer assurance that it is safe to return a child to the care of their parents. Likewise, the opinion of a poor or untested service provider that a parent has been unsuccessful in meeting the goals set by a service provider is not, in fact, a sound basis for forever severing a child from their parents.

"A troubling investigative report published by The Los Angeles Times reveals that we have no factual basis for concluding that the millions of dollars we spend on services to help families reunify with their children actually help those families. Nor do we have any factual basis for concluding that when a parent successfully completes court-ordered services, it is predictably safe to return a child to the parent's care. . . Our families and children deserve basic due diligence in tracking the quality of the services we pay for to help them."

Arguments in Opposition

No opposition on file.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, the April 16, 2024, version of this bill would result in negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 5-0-2

YES: Lee, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Mathis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

UPDATED

VERSION: August 23, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0004895

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 3145

Author: Bryan (D) and Hart (D)

Amended: 8/23/24 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 7/1/24

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Limón, Menjivar

NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakespear

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Family preservation services: standards

SOURCE: Children’s Advocacy Network

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act” which requires providers, at the time they are selected by a participating county, to provide services that are reasonable, meritorious, and that demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement.

Senate Floor Amendments of 8/23/24 revises the requirements of counties and providers of services and provides requirements to become operative January 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the court, if at the initial hearing, the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section (WIC) 319(e))
2. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents' custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and 12 months if the child is over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (WIC 361.5(a))
3. Permits the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Permits that order to include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, a parent education and parenting program operated by a community college, school district, or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Authorizes a foster parent or relative with whom the child is placed to be directed to participate in such a program in cases in which the court deems participation is appropriate and in the child’s best interest. Requires the program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by WIC 300. (WIC 362(d))

This bill:

1. Creates the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act.”
2. Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the racial disproportionalities and disparities in the foster care system.
3. Provides that the services selected by a participating county shall be reasonable and meritorious and shall demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement.
4. Provides that each service provider, at the time the provider is selected by a participating county, shall provide services that are reasonable, meritorious, and that demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement.
5. Provides that service providers selected shall be reviewed for reasonableness, merit, and whether they demonstrated cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement no less than every three years after selection.
6. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25 percent of children whose parents or guardians received services are children who meet any of the following circumstances, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance:
   1. Are removed from the physical custody of their parents or guardians.
   2. Are determined to probable soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
   3. Have been adjudged wards of the court.
   4. Are families of children subject to minors who are adjudged wards or dependent children of the court.
   5. Are children who are determined to require out-of-home placement.
7. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the two years after termination of family preservation services if all of the following criteria are met:
   1. No more than 10 percent of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of the circumstances listed in 5) above, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance.
   2. No children who were returned home died or nearly died due to abuse or neglect.
8. Provides that the annual reports required by counties to meet federal requirements shall include the information and data descry in 5) above, demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider’s services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.

Comments

According to the author, “When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent’s completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. AB 3145 requires counties to track each service provider’s success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry.”

Child Welfare Services (CWS) The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed and placed into foster care.

After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services are provided to children who are able to remain safely in their home while the family receives services. This is considered family preservation services and the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.

If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.

Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system, time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.

Case Plan A critical part of a dependency case is the case plan provided to each parent. The case plan is designed to identify and resolve problems so that the child may safely remove home. Legislative findings call the case plan “the foundation and central unifying tool in child welfare services.” (WIC 16501.1(a)(1)). A written case plan must be completed within 60 days of initial removal or by the date of the disposition hearing, whichever is earlier. Common services included in a case plan are parenting classes (which are almost always part of a case plan), substance abuse classes, domestic abuse classes, family counseling, and individual counseling. At each court hearing, a parents progress in the case plan is reviewed and failure to comply with the case plan may result in services being terminated and move toward a permanent plan for the child that does not include being returned to the parent.

Current Methodology to Determine if Services are Successful Under existing law, a program providing family preservation and support services shall be deemed successful if the program meets the following standards:

1. Enables families to resolve their own problems, effectively utilize service systems, and advocate for their children in educational and social agencies.
2. Enhances family functioning by building on family strengths.
3. At least 75 percent of the children receiving services remain in their own home for six months after termination of services.
4. During the first year after services are terminated:
   1. At least 60 percent of the children receiving services remain at home one year after services are terminated
   2. The average length of stay in out-of-home care of children selected to receive services who have already been removed from their home and placed in out-of-home care is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care of children who do not receive program services.
5. Two years after the termination of family preservation services:
   1. The average length of out-of-home stay of children selected to receive services under this section who, at the time of selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in out-of-home care who do not receive services pursuant to this section.
   2. At least 60 percent of the children who were returned home pursuant to this section remain at home.

The Los Angeles Times reported this year^[1] on the failure of any oversight of parenting classes ordered in family reunification cases and lack of data that these classes even work. In 2004, California spent over $400,000 to launch the Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. The Times reports that while this online database was meant to help social workers find high-quality programs, nearly half of the 500 programs listed on the site did not have enough evidence to prove they worked and were classified as “unable to be rated.” The Times investigation found:

1. Los Angeles County does not rely on the state’s clearinghouse when selecting programs. While the county contracts with some providers that offer evidence-backed services, it also allows parents to choose unregulated services at community and faith organizations.
2. Orange County contracts with some providers that use “evidence-informed practices” but does not require that all parents use them.
3. Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services does not rely on the state’s evidence-based clearinghouse.

While the law outlines the standards by which a program is to be deemed successful, it provides no method to gather, nor verify, that information. This bill seeks to fill that gap by requiring service providers to meet more requirements to be determined to be successful, provide documentation of success, and have that information provided to the counties and public.

Related/Prior Legislation:

SB 1056 (Liu, 2016) would have increased the provision of family reunification and family preservation services, as specified. The bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 911 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent.

AB 1500 (Wesson, 1999) would have permitted counties to renew contracts for family preservation services without rebidding them. The bill was vetoed by Governor Davis.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/26/24)

Black Women Organized for Political Action
Childrens Advocacy Institute
Culver City Democratic Club
Howard Advocacy, INC.
Justice2jobs Coalition
Santa Monica Democratic Club

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/26/24)

County Welfare Directors Association of California

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Heather Hopkins / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

8/26/24 17:01:36

**** END ****

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-04/california-child-abuse-parenting-classes-unregulated#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20California's%20emphasis,management%20and%20healthy%20communication%20skills. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 3145

Author: Bryan (D) and Hart (D)

Amended: 4/16/24 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: 4-0, 7/1/24

AYES: Alvarado-Gil, Ochoa Bogh, Limón, Menjivar

NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakespear

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Family preservation services: standards

SOURCE: Children’s Advocacy Network

DIGEST:

This bill establishes the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act” which requires service providers to document their success, adds additional requirements for a family preservation service to be deemed successful, and requires this information to be included in a county report which is to be posted annually online.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Requires the court, if at the initial hearing, the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) §319(e))
2. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents' custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and 12 months if the child is over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (WIC §361.5(a))
3. Permits the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Permits that order to include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, a parent education and parenting program operated by a community college, school district, or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Authorizes a foster parent or relative with whom the child is placed to be directed to participate in such a program in cases in which the court deems participation is appropriate and in the child’s best interest. Requires the program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by WIC Section 300. (WIC §362(d))

This bill:

1. Creates the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act.”
2. Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the racial disproportionalities and disparities in the foster care system.
3. Revises legislative intent around family preservation services to include the encouragement of the continuity of the family unit by consistently providing family preservation services that have a track record of actually helping families and ensuring that contracts for family preservation services establish minimum standards for tracking and reporting the outcomes of those services.
4. Requires service providers of family preservation services have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement. Provides that this documentation shall be reviewed for each provider at the time of the initial selection and no less than every three years thereafter.
5. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25 percent of children whose parents or guardians received services are children who meet any of the following circumstances, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance:
   1. Are removed from the physical custody of their parents or guardians.
   2. Are determined to probable soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
   3. Have been adjudged wards of the court.
   4. Are families of children subject to minors who are adjudged wards or dependent children of the court.
   5. Are children who are determined to require out-of-home placement.
6. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the two years after termination of family preservation services if all of the following criteria are met:
   1. No more than 10 percent of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of the circumstances listed in 5) above, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance.
   2. No children who were returned home died or nearly died due to abuse or neglect.
7. Provides that the annual reports required by counties to meet federal requirements shall include the information and data descry in 5) above, demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider’s services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.
8. Defines “family preservation services” as intensive services for families whose children, without these services, could be subject to any of the following:
   1. Be at imminent risk of out-of-home placement.
   2. Remain in existing out-of-home placement for longer periods of time.
   3. Be placed in a more restrictive out-of-home placement.

Comments

1. According to the author, “When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent’s completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. AB 3145 requires counties to track each service provider’s success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry.”
2. Child Welfare Services (CWS) The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed and placed into foster care.

After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services are provided to children who are able to remain safely in their home while the family receives services. This is considered family preservation services and the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.

If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.

Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system, time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.

1. Case Plan A critical part of a dependency case is the case plan provided to each parent. The case plan is designed to identify and resolve problems so that the child may safely remove home. Legislative findings call the case plan “the foundation and central unifying tool in child welfare services.” (WIC §16501.1(a)(1)). A written case plan must be completed within 60 days of initial removal or by the date of the disposition hearing, whichever is earlier. Common services included in a case plan are parenting classes (which are almost always part of a case plan), substance abuse classes, domestic abuse classes, family counseling, and individual counseling. At each court hearing, a parents progress in the case plan is reviewed and failure to comply with the case plan may result in services being terminated and move toward a permanent plan for the child that does not include being returned to the parent.
2. Current Methodology to Determine if Services are Successful Under existing law, a program providing family preservation and support services shall be deemed successful if the program meets the following standards:
3. Enables families to resolve their own problems, effectively utilize service systems, and advocate for their children in educational and social agencies.
4. Enhances family functioning by building on family strengths.
5. At least 75 percent of the children receiving services remain in their own home for six months after termination of services.
6. During the first year after services are terminated:
   1. At least 60 percent of the children receiving services remain at home one year after services are terminated
   2. The average length of stay in out-of-home care of children selected to receive services who have already been removed from their home and placed in out-of-home care is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care of children who do not receive program services.
7. Two years after the termination of family preservation services:
   1. The average length of out-of-home stay of children selected to receive services under this section who, at the time of selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in out-of-home care who do not receive services pursuant to this section.
   2. At least 60 percent of the children who were returned home pursuant to this section remain at home.
8. The Los Angeles Times reported this year^[1] on the failure of any oversight of parenting classes ordered in family reunification cases and lack of data that these classes even work. In 2004, California spent over $400,000 to launch the Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. The Times reports that while this online database was meant to help social workers find high-quality programs, nearly half of the 500 programs listed on the site did not have enough evidence to prove they worked and were classified as “unable to be rated.” The Times investigation found:
9. Los Angeles County does not rely on the state’s clearinghouse when selecting programs. While the county contracts with some providers that offer evidence-backed services, it also allows parents to choose unregulated services at community and faith organizations.
10. Orange County contracts with some providers that use “evidence-informed practices” but does not require that all parents use them.
11. Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services does not rely on the state’s evidence-based clearinghouse.

While the law outlines the standards by which a program is to be deemed successful, it provides no method to gather, nor verify, that information. This bill seeks to fill that gap by requiring service providers to meet more requirements to be determined to be successful, provide documentation of success, and have that information provided to the counties and public.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 1056 (Liu, 2016) would have increased the provision of family reunification and family preservation services, as specified. The bill was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 911 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent.

AB 1500 (Wesson, 1999) would have permitted counties to renew contracts for family preservation services without rebidding them. The bill was vetoed by Governor Davis.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/6/24)

Children’s Advocacy Institute (Source)

Black Women Organized for Political Action
Culver City Democratic Club
Justice2jobs Coalition
Santa Monica Democratic Club

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/6/24)

County Welfare Directors Association of California

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Black Women Organized for Political Action write, “In dependency court, whether parents will be able to reunify with their children or whether their parental rights will be terminated hinges to a large degree on compliance with a case plan that includes services designed to address the issues placing children at risk of abuse or neglect. These services can range from parenting classes to drug counseling to mental health; whatever services are reasonably needed to ensure reuniting a child with their parents will be safe for the child are supposed to be provided by the county. But what if the services being provided to parents are of poor or untested quality? If so, then a parent completing the offered services satisfactorily would not actually offer assurance that it is safe to return a child to the care of their parents…California law does not require counties to perform any kind for tracking outcome data for individual service providers and the State has enacted only minimal, largely aspirational, statutory standards for service provider qualifications and outcomes. AB 3145 would reform that.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: County Welfare Directors Association of California write, “CWDA appreciates the need to ensure quality family preservation services but we cannot support the bill in current form. CWDA proposes that the bill be amended to instead create a workgroup comprised of counties, CDSS, advocates, judicial council and children’s and parents’ attorneys, which would develop recommendations to improve access to quality family preservation services and ensure best outcomes for children and their families across the state. However, we cannot support a bill that would restrict the pool of available services without first establishing how counties can best meet the needs of their residents, especially given the fact that we do not know how many programs even qualify under the standards created under this bill in its current form or how this bill would affect access in underserved local areas. A workgroup would ensure that any changes be undertaken only after their potential impact could be better understood.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 5/22/24

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Soria, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Calderon, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Friedman, Holden, Mathis, Joe Patterson, Luz Rivas

Prepared by: Heather Hopkins / HUMAN S. / (916) 651-1524

8/7/24 13:38:55

**** END ****

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-04/california-child-abuse-parenting-classes-unregulated#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20California's%20emphasis,management%20and%20healthy%20communication%20skills. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Senator Alvarado-Gil, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Subject: Family preservation services: standards

SUMMARY

This bill establishes the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act” which requires service providers to document their success, adds additional requirements for a family preservation service to be deemed successful, and requires this information to be included in a county report which is to be posted annually online.

ABSTRACT

Existing Law:

1. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (WIC 300 et seq.)
   
2. Requires the court, if at the initial hearing, the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (WIC 319(e))
   
3. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents' custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and 12 months if the child is over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (WIC 361.5(a))
   
4. Permits the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Permits that order to include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, a parent education and parenting program operated by a community college, school district, or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Authorizes a foster parent or relative with whom the child is placed to be directed to participate in such a program in cases in which the court deems participation is appropriate and in the child’s best interest. Requires the program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by WIC 300. (WIC 362(d))
   
5. Requires the juvenile court, excepting certain specified conditions, if a child is not returned to the parent or guardian at the permanency review hearing, to hold a hearing to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. Requires the court to determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. Sets forth examples of circumstances that would not, in or of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide reasonable services. (WIC 366.22(a))
   
6. Requires a court to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that reasonable reunification services have been provided to the parent prior to ordering a hearing to terminate parental rights. (WIC 366.22(b)(3)(C))
7. Declares legislative intent to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing “family preservation services,” which means intensive services for families whose children, without these services, would be subject to any of the following:
   
   1. Be at imminent risk of out-of-home placement;
      
   2. Remain in existing out-of-home placement for longer periods of time; or,
      
   3. Be placed in a more restrictive out-of-home placement. (WIC 16500.5(a))
      
8. Authorizes services that may be provided to include, but are not limited to, counseling, mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment services, including treatment at a residential substance abuse treatment facility that accepts families, parenting, respite, day treatment, transportation, homemaking, and family support services. Requires each county that chooses to provide mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment to identify and develop these services in consultation with county mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment agencies. Authorizes the services to be provided to be determined by each participating county. Permits each county to contract with individuals and organizations for services to be provided. (WIC 16500.5(c))
   
9. Requires the services selected by a participating county to be reasonable and meritorious and to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement. Prohibits a county from expending more funds for services than that amount which would be expended for placement in out-of-home care. (WIC 16500.5(c)(4))
   
10. Requires, in order to maintain federal funding and meet federal requirements, CDSS and the Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP) to provide administrative oversight, monitoring, and consultation to ensure both of the following:
    
    1. Each county includes in its county plan, information that details what services are to be funded and who will be served, and how the services are coordinated with the array of services available in the county; and,
       
    2. Requires CDSS to review these plans and provide technical assistance as needed, and provides that OCAP shall require counties to submit annual reports, as part of the current reporting process, on program services and children and families served. (WIC 16500.5(h))
       

This Bill:

1. Creates the “Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act.”
   
2. Makes legislative findings and declarations regarding the racial disproportionalities and disparities in the foster care system.
   
3. Revises legislative intent around family preservation services to include the encouragement of the continuity of the family unit by consistently providing family preservation services that have a track record of actually helping families and ensuring that contracts for family preservation services establish minimum standards for tracking and reporting the outcomes of those services.
   
4. Requires service providers of family preservation services have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement. Provides that this documentation shall be reviewed for each provider at the time of the initial selection and no less than every three years thereafter.
   
5. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25 percent of children whose parents or guardians received services are children who meet any of the following circumstances, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance:
   
   1. Are removed from the physical custody of their parents or guardians.
      
   2. Are determined to probable soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
      
   3. Have been adjudged wards of the court.
      
   4. Are families of children subject to minors who are adjudged wards or dependent children of the court.
      
   5. Are children who are determined to require out-of-home placement.
      
6. Adds to the requirements for a program to be deemed successful by a county that during the two years after termination of family preservation services if all of the following criteria are met:
   
   1. No more than 10 percent of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of the circumstances listed in 5) above, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance.
      
   2. No children who were returned home died or nearly died due to abuse or neglect.
      
7. Provides that the annual reports required by counties to meet federal requirements shall include the information and data descry in 5) above, demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider’s services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.
   
8. Defines “family preservation services” as intensive services for families whose children, without these services, could be subject to any of the following:
   
   1. Be at imminent risk of out-of-home placement.
      
   2. Remain in existing out-of-home placement for longer periods of time.
      
   3. Be placed in a more restrictive out-of-home placement.

FISCAL IMPACT

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis, “CDSS estimates ongoing General Fund costs of an unknown amount, but likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for additional staff to develop data analysis and oversight processes and to provide technical assistance to participating counties. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.”

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

Purpose of the Bill:

According to the author, “When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent’s completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. AB 3145 requires counties to track each service provider’s success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry.”

Child Welfare Services (CWS)

The CWS system is an essential component of the state’s safety net. Social workers in each county who receive reports of abuse or neglect, investigate and resolve those reports. When a case is substantiated, a family is either provided with services to ensure a child’s well-being and avoid court involvement, or a child is removed and placed into foster care. In 2022, the state’s child welfare agencies received 440,212 reports of abuse or neglect. Of these, 51,806 reports contained allegations that were substantiated and 19,953 children were removed from their homes and placed into foster care via the CWS system.

After the county child welfare department becomes involved with families, approximately 12 months of services are provided to children who are able to remain safely in their home while the family receives services. This is considered family preservation services and the child does not come under the jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency court during this time.

If it is determined that a child cannot remain in the home, even with family preservation and support services, the child comes under the jurisdiction of the county’s juvenile dependency court while the family is served by a CWS system social worker. This system seeks to ensure the safety and protection of these children, and where possible, preserve and strengthen families through visitation and family reunification. It is the state’s goal to reunify a foster child or youth with their biological family whenever possible.

Generally, if a child cannot be safely returned home after the time allotted for reunification services ends, the court terminates the parental rights of the child’s parents. The child’s case plan then focuses on permanency services, in an effort to connect the child to a permanent placement through adoption or guardianship. If an adoption or guardianship is not established, a child may remain in long-term foster care. The child is always supposed to be placed in the most family like setting, with short-term residential treatment programs used only as necessary to provide intensive services. A child remains eligible for services for the length of their time in the child welfare system, time limits relate to the provision of services to the child’s parents.

In some circumstances, existing law allows the court to not provide reunification services at all, and parental rights are terminated without the opportunity for reunification. These circumstances include, but are not limited to the following examples: when the whereabouts of the parent are unknown; when the parent is suffering from a mental disability, as provided, that renders the parent incapable of utilizing those services; when the parent caused the death of another child through abuse or neglect; after a finding of sever sexual abuse; when the parent has been convicted of a violent felony, as provided; and in some instances where a prior child of the parent became a dependent of the court and was unable to reunify.

Case Plan

A critical part of a dependency case is the case plan provided to each parent. The case plan is designed to identify and resolve problems so that the child may safely remove home. Legislative findings call the case plan “the foundation and central unifying tool in child welfare services.” (WIC 16501.1(a)(1)). A written case plan must be completed within 60 days of initial removal or by the date of the disposition hearing, whichever is earlier. Common services included in a case plan are parenting classes (which are almost always part of a case plan), substance abuse classes, domestic abuse classes, family counseling, and individual counseling. At each court hearing, a parents progress in the case plan is reviewed and failure to comply with the case plan may result in services being terminated and move toward a permanent plan for the child that does not include being returned to the parent.

Current Methodology to Determine if Services are Successful

Under existing law, a program providing family preservation and support services shall be deemed successful if the program meets the following standards:

• Enables families to resolve their own problems, effectively utilize service systems, and advocate for their children in educational and social agencies.
  
• Enhances family functioning by building on family strengths.
  
• At least 75 percent of the children receiving services remain in their own home for six months after termination of services.
  
• During the first year after services are terminated:
  
  • At least 60 percent of the children receiving services remain at home one year after services are terminated
    
  • The average length of stay in out-of-home care of children selected to receive services who have already been removed from their home and placed in out-of-home care is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care of children who do not receive program services.
    
• Two years after the termination of family preservation services:
  
  • The average length of out-of-home stay of children selected to receive services under this section who, at the time of selection, are in out-of-home care, is 50 percent less than the average length of stay in out-of-home care for children in out-of-home care who do not receive services pursuant to this section.
    
  • At least 60 percent of the children who were returned home pursuant to this section remain at home.

The Los Angeles Times reported this year^[1] on the failure of any oversight of parenting classes ordered in family reunification cases and lack of data that these classes even work. In 2004, California spent over $400,000 to launch the Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare. The Times reports that while this online database was meant to help social workers find high-quality programs, nearly half of the 500 programs listed on the site did not have enough evidence to prove they worked and were classified as “unable to be rated.” The Times investigation found:

• Los Angeles County does not rely on the state’s clearinghouse when selecting programs. While the county contracts with some providers that offer evidence-backed services, it also allows parents to choose unregulated services at community and faith organizations.
• Orange County contracts with some providers that use “evidence-informed practices” but does not require that all parents use them.
• Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services does not rely on the state’s evidence-based clearinghouse.
  

While the law outlines the standards by which a program is to be deemed successful, it provides no method to gather, nor verify, that information. This bill seeks to fill that gap by requiring service providers to meet more requirements to be determined to be successful, provide documentation of success, and have that information provided to the counties and public.

Related/Prior Legislation:

SB 1056 (Liu, 2016) would have increased the provision of family reunification and family preservation services, as specified. SB 1056 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 911 (Liu, Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014) imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent.

AB 1500 (Wesson, 1999) would have permitted counties to renew contracts for family preservation services without rebidding them. AB 1500 was vetoed by Governor Davis.

COMMENTS

Case plans are a critically important piece of a dependency case. The services required in case plans are designed to enable families to reunify. However, there are currently no requirements that providers provide any kind of data or reporting to prove that their services are successful. This bill seeks to fill that gap, highlighted by recent Los Angeles Times reporting, by requiring service providers to document their success, adding additional requirements for a family preservation service to be deemed successful, and requiring this information to be included in a county report which is to be posted annually online. If the services provided to parents in dependency cases are not effective, families who reunify as a result of completing those services place children in danger of future harm. Having services that are more successful in addressing the underlying needs of parents and families will not only help parents reunify successfully with their children, but will keep children safe in the homes they are returned to.

SUPPORT/OPPOSITION

Arguments in Support:

>

Arguments in Opposition:

PRIOR VOTES

POSITIONS

Support:

Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA)
Culver City Democratic Club
Howard Advocacy, INC.
Justice2jobs Coalition
Santa Monica Democratic Club

Oppose:

County Welfare Directors Association of California

-- END --

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-04/california-child-abuse-parenting-classes-unregulated#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20California's%20emphasis,management%20and%20healthy%20communication%20skills. ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 3145

Author:(Bryan and Hart)

As Amended Ver:April 16, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act to require service providers of family preservation services to document the outcomes of their services.

Major Provisions

1. Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act and adds to the requirements placed on service providers of family preservation services selected by participating counties, to also require service providers to have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or to provide services with the same documented success, which shall be reviewed for each provider at the time of the initial selection and no less than every three years thereafter. 
2. Adds to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful, as follows:
3. During the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services, are children who meet any of the following circumstances, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance:
4. Are removed from the physical custody of their parents or guardian;
5. Are determined to probably soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court;
6. Have been adjudged wards of the court;
7. Are families of children subject to minors who are adjudged wards or dependent children of the court; or,
8. Are children who are determined to require out-of-home placement; and,
9. Two years after the termination of family preservation services, no more than 10% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of the circumstances listed in a) above with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance, and no children who were returned home died or nearly died due to abuse or neglect.
10. Specifies the annual reports required by counties to meet federal requirements shall include the information and data described in 2) above, demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider's services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.

COMMENTS

Background: Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child's welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents' custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. Permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.

Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker's petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.

At the dispositional hearing the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance abuse counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.

Reunification Services. When a child is removed from their parents' custody and it is determined by the courts and in speaking with the child's social worker that the child would ultimately benefit from being returned or reunited with the family, the court may order reunification services in order to address the underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child's removal in the first place. Reunification services include, but are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, substance use disorder treatment, respite care, parent support groups, home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order to facilitate a child’s reunification with their parents. For children under three years of age, current law allows six months of reunification services; and, for children over three years of age, 12 months of reunification services are to be offered. Extensions of services are available if the court determines that there is substantial probability that a child will return to their parents' custody within the extended time period.

In the News. A January 4, 2023, article featured in the Los Angeles Times entitled Parenting classes are routinely ordered in child abuse cases. California isn't ensuring they work. (Mackenzie Mays) detailed cases of parents who were ordered to participate in parenting classes to try and reunify with their children as a result of allegations of neglect and abuse, and whose children later died at the hands of their parents. The article concluded that these court-ordered classes go largely unregulated and that judges are not focused on the quality of the parenting classes. These services are meant to assist in rehabilitating parents and increasing their chances of successfully and safely reunifying with their child, but it is clear that these classes do not keep every parent from continuing the abuse that brought them in contact with the child welfare services system.

The provisions of this bill seek to ensure that parents involved in the child welfare services system are receiving meaningful help while they attempt to reunify with their child by:

1. Requiring service providers to have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or to provide services with the same documented success;
2. Requiring each service provider's outcomes at the time of the initial selection, and no less than every three years thereafter, to be reviewed;
3. Adds to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful; and,
4. Requires additional reporting requirements on outcomes and provides transparency by posting the reports publicly.

According to the Author and Sponsors, these services can cost thousands of dollars per course, and in fiscal year 2022-23, San Diego County alone spent $1.63 million on child and family well-being services, representing over a fifth of their Health and Human Services budget.

Equity Implications: Research has indicated that the majority of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below the federal poverty line, are overrepresented by certain racial and ethnic groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these families are already facing enormous barriers to reunify with their children. The provisions of this bill seek to ensure services designed to help them safely reunify with their children have accountability regarding the qualifications as well as their efficacy so that a parent and child can be offered services designed to safely reunify.

According to the Author

"When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent's completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. [This bill] requires counties to track each service provider's success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry."

Arguments in Support

According to Black Women Organized for Political Action, "If the services being provided to parents are of poor or untested quality, then a parent completing the offered services satisfactorily would not actually offer assurance that it is safe to return a child to the care of their parents. Likewise, the opinion of a poor or untested service provider that a parent has been unsuccessful in meeting the goals set by a service provider is not, in fact, a sound basis for forever severing a child from their parents.

"A troubling investigative report published by The Los Angeles Times reveals that we have no factual basis for concluding that the millions of dollars we spend on services to help families reunify with their children actually help those families. Nor do we have any factual basis for concluding that when a parent successfully completes court-ordered services, it is predictably safe to return a child to the parent's care. . . Our families and children deserve basic due diligence in tracking the quality of the services we pay for to help them."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA), "While counties work diligently to ensure that clients have access to the best available services, we are concerned that this bill could drastically shrink the pool of available resources everywhere in the state. We do not have reasonable estimates on how many programs would meet the requirements created in this bill and do not believe that such restrictions should be implemented without an accurate assessment. Additionally, some programs currently utilized for family preservation are contracted through behavioral health for a broader population of clients, not just those in child welfare, including programs for substance abuse. This may lead to additional costs for contracting with providers who can meet the requirements of this bill beyond what behavioral health currently requires.

"CWDA has significant equity concerns with this bill. Programs that are not conducted in English or another common language might be harder to approve according to the standards created in this bill. The restriction could therefore disproportionately exclude programs that cater to underrepresented linguistic or ethnic groups. Finally, in rural underserved areas, this bill would severely degrade counties' ability to provide critical assistance to families where there is a smaller pool of programs and providers available overall CWDA appreciates the need to ensure best practices for family preservation services. We believe further discussions with stakeholders, including potentially creating a working group to address this issue, is necessary before making any new requirements."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 14, 2024, CDSS estimates ongoing General Fund costs of an unknown amount, but likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for additional staff to develop data analysis and oversight processes and to provide technical assistance to participating counties.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

VOTES

ASM HUMAN SERVICES: 5-0-2

YES: Lee, Calderon, Gipson, Jackson, Ortega

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli, Mathis

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 16, 2024

CONSULTANT: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0003127

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3145

Author:(Bryan) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act to require service providers of family preservation services to document the outcomes of their services. This bill also requires the Department of Social Services (CDSS) to post reports demonstrating services meet standards for being deemed successful, within 30 days of receipt of an annual report from a county.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act and adds to the requirements placed on service providers of family preservation services selected by participating counties, to also require service providers to have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or to provide services with the same documented success, which must be reviewed for each provider at the time of the initial selection and no less than every three years thereafter. 
2. Adds to the criteria that deem the family preservation services successful, as specified.
3. Requires counties to include in the annual report required by the Office of Child Abuse Prevention information and data, as described, demonstrating whether the services provided meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider’s services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.

FISCAL EFFECT:

CDSS estimates ongoing General Fund costs of an unknown amount, but likely in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for additional staff to develop data analysis and oversight processes and to provide technical assistance to participating counties.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent’s completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. [This bill] requires counties to track each service provider’s success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry.

1. Background. California’s child welfare services (CWS) system exists to protect children from abuse and neglect, and in doing so, provides for their health, safety, and overall well-being. When suspicions of abuse or neglect arise, Child Protective Services is tasked with investigating the report. If a child is suspected to be at risk of neglect, abuse, or abandonment, the juvenile court holds legal jurisdiction, and the CWS system appoints a social worker who creates a case plan which includes the provision of relevant services. If the court orders a child to be placed outside of the home, the parent usually receives court-ordered family reunification services. Upon completion of the services, in addition to making any changes or improvements described in the case plan, the court may dismiss the child’s court case and the county welfare department case will be closed. As of January 1, 2024, there are 43,633 youth between birth and 20 years of age in foster care in California.

When a child is removed from their parents’ custody, the court may order reunification services to address the underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child’s removal. Reunification services include, but are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, substance use disorder treatment, respite care, parent support groups, home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order to facilitate a child’s reunification with their parents. For children under three years of age, existing law allows six months of reunification services. For children over three years of age, the law allows12 months of reunification services. Extensions of services are available if the court determines that there is substantial probability that a child will return to their parents’ custody within the extended time period.

A January 4, 2023, article featured in the Los Angeles Times detailed cases of parents who were ordered to participate in parenting classes as part of their court-ordered reunification services, and whose children later died at the hands of their parents. The article concluded these court-ordered classes go largely unregulated and judges are not focused on the quality of the parenting classes.

In response, this bill requires each service provider to document the outcomes of their services to demonstrate the provider is meeting service standards deemed necessary for success. The bill requires counties to report this information in their annual reports to CDSS and requires CDSS to post these reports on its internet website.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES

Alex Lee, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 3145 (

Author:Bryan) – As Amended Ver:April 16, 2024

SUBJECT: Family preservation services: standards

SUMMARY: Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act to require service providers of family preservation services to document the outcomes of their services. Adds to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful, and requires the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) to post reports demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, within 30 days of receipt of an annual report from a county. Specifically, this bill:

1. Establishes the Foster Care Justice through Meaningful Help for Parents Act and adds to the requirements placed on service providers of family preservation services selected by participating counties, to also require service providers to have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or to provide services with the same documented success, which shall be reviewed for each provider at the time of the initial selection and no less than every three years thereafter. 
2. Adds to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful, as follows:
3. During the first year after services are terminated, no more than 25% of children whose parents or guardian received services, are children who meet any of the following circumstances, with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance:
4. Are removed from the physical custody of their parents or guardian;
5. Are determined to probably soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court;
6. Have been adjudged wards of the court;
7. Are families of children subject to minors who are adjudged wards or dependent children of the court; or,
8. Are children who are determined to require out-of-home placement; and,
9. Two years after the termination of family preservation services, no more than 10% of children whose parents or guardian received services are children who meet any of the circumstances listed in a) above with that percentage limit separately applicable to each circumstance, and no children who were returned home died or nearly died due to abuse or neglect.
10. Specifies the annual reports required by counties to meet federal requirements shall include the information and data described in 2) above, demonstrating whether the services meet the standards for being deemed successful, the name of each provider of services as described, and whether the provider’s services were deemed successful. Requires CDSS, within 30 business days of receipt of an annual report from a county, to post the annual report to its website.
11. Declares legislative intent to encourage the continuity of the family unit by all of the following:
12. Consistently providing family preservation services that have a track record of actually helping families;
13. Ensuring that contracts for family preservation services establish minimum standards for tracking and reporting the outcomes of those services;
14. Providing services that have their outcomes tracked and reported for those children involved in juvenile dependency proceedings when they are returned to the family unit or when a minor will probably soon be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court;
15. Providing counseling and family support services designed to eradicate the situation that necessitated intervention and that have a track record of actually helping families. 
16. Makes the following findings and declarations:
17. Children of color in California become foster children at rates that far exceed their proportion of the population. For example, in California, 21% of foster children are Black. Black children comprise about 5% of the state’s children. Native American children comprise less than 1% of all California children, but exceed 1% of children in foster care;
18. As the Legislative Analyst’s Office has documented: “The proportions of Black and Native American youth in foster care are around four times larger than the proportions of Black and Native American youth in California overall. In addition, recent research on cumulative child welfare involvement of California’s 1999 birth cohort found nearly one in two Black and Native American children experienced some level of child welfare involvement by the time they turned 18 (compared to around 29 percent of Hispanic children, 22 percent of White children, and 13 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander children). Racial disproportionalities and disparities . . . persist at all levels of the system.”;
19. One way to promote racial justice in foster care is to ensure that parents involved in the foster care system are receiving reunification services that actually work to keep them and their children out of the foster care system and are culturally competent. As the Los Angeles Times found after a nearly year-long investigation: “The state does not ensure that parent education programs meet any sort of standards, allows parents facing abuse allegations to take classes that experts have deemed low quality, and cannot provide research evidence for half the programs listed in a state-funded database meant to act as a key tool for local officials to ensure child safety.”; and,
20. Taxpayers, too, deserve to know their tax dollars are being spent on services for families that actually help them.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Declares legislative intent to encourage the continuity of the family unit by providing “family preservation services,” which means intensive services for families whose children, without these services, would be subject to any of the following:
2. Be at imminent risk of out-of-home placement;
3. Remain in existing out-of-home placement for longer periods of time; or,
4. Be placed in a more restrictive out-of-home placement. (Welfare and Institutions Code [WIC] § 16500.5(a))
5. Authorizes services that may be provided to include, but are not limited to, counseling, mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment services, including treatment at a residential substance abuse treatment facility that accepts families, parenting, respite, day treatment, transportation, homemaking, and family support services. Requires each county that chooses to provide mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment to identify and develop these services in consultation with county mental health treatment and substance abuse treatment agencies. Authorizes the services to be provided to be determined by each participating county. Permits each county to contract with individuals and organizations for services to be provided. (WIC § 16500.5(c))
6. Requires the services selected by a participating county to be reasonable and meritorious and to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and success at avoiding out-of-home placement, or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement. Prohibits a county from expending more funds for services than that amount which would be expended for placement in out-of-home care. (WIC § 16500.5(c)(4))
7. Requires, in order to maintain federal funding and meet federal requirements, CDSS and the Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP) to provide administrative oversight, monitoring, and consultation to ensure both of the following:
8. Each county includes in its county plan, information that details what services are to be funded and who will be served, and how the services are coordinated with the array of services available in the county; and,
9. Requires CDSS to review these plans and provide technical assistance as needed, and provides that OCAP shall require counties to submit annual reports, as part of the current reporting process, on program services and children and families served. (WIC § 16500.5(h))
10. Establishes the juvenile court with jurisdiction over children who are subject to abuse or neglect. (WIC § 300 et seq.)
11. Requires the court, if at the initial hearing, the juvenile court orders a child removed from their parent due to abuse or neglect, to order that child welfare reunification services be provided to the family as soon as possible in order to reunify the child with their family, if appropriate. (WIC § 319(e))
12. Requires the court, at the dispositional hearing, to order a social worker to provide child welfare services to a child who has been removed from their parents' custody and to the parents in order to support the goal of reunification, for a specified time period, except under certain circumstances. Provides that children and families in the child welfare system should typically receive a full six months of reunification services if the child is under three years of age, and 12 months if the child is over three years of age, but that may be extended up to 18 or 24 months, as provided. (WIC §361.5(a))
13. Permits the juvenile court to direct any reasonable orders to the parents or guardians of the child who is the subject of any proceedings as the court deems necessary and proper. Permits that order to include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program, including, but not limited to, a parent education and parenting program operated by a community college, school district, or other appropriate agency designated by the court. Authorizes a foster parent or relative with whom the child is placed to be directed to participate in such a program in cases in which the court deems participation is appropriate and in the child’s best interest. Requires the program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate to be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court’s finding that the child is a person described by WIC § 300. (WIC § 362(d))
14. Requires the juvenile court, excepting certain specified conditions, if a child is not returned to the parent or guardian at the permanency review hearing, to hold a hearing to determine whether adoption, guardianship, or continued placement in foster care is the most appropriate plan for the child. Requires the court to determine whether reasonable services have been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian. Sets forth examples of circumstances that would not, in or of themselves, be deemed a failure to provide reasonable services. (WIC § 366.22(a))
15. Requires a court to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that reasonable reunification services have been provided to the parent prior to ordering a hearing to terminate parental rights. (WIC § 366.22(b)(3)(C))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown, this bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

Background: Child Welfare Services. California’s child welfare services system was established with the goal of protecting youth from abuse and neglect and is designed to provide safety, health, and overall well-being of children. When a child is identified as being at risk of abuse or neglect, reports can be made to either law enforcement or a county child welfare agency. Often, these reports are submitted by mandated reporters who are legally required to report suspicion of child abuse or neglect due to their profession, such as a teacher or healthcare provider. When a mandated reporter submits a report to either law enforcement or the county child welfare agency, a social worker determines whether the allegation is of suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and creates a case plan which includes the provision of relevant services. The child's social worker and the court collaborate to evaluate and review the circumstances of each case, seeking either reunification or placement outside of the home as a way for the child to achieve permanency.

The court will then determine whether the allegations are true and if the child can remain at home. If the court orders a child to be placed outside of the home, the parent usually receives court-ordered family reunification services. Upon completion of the services, in addition to making any changes or improvements described in the case plan, the court may dismiss the child’s court case and the county welfare department case will also be closed.

California's child welfare services programs are administered by the 58 individual counties with each county organizing and operating its own program of child protection based on local needs while adhering to state and federal regulations. When a child welfare case is open, counties are the primary governmental entity interacting with children and families when addressing issues of child abuse and neglect and are responsible, either directly or through providers, for obtaining or providing the interventions and relevant services to protect children and assist families with issues related to child abuse and neglect.

CDSS secures federal funding to support child welfare services programs, provides statewide best practices training for social workers, and conducts program regulatory oversight and administration, and is responsible for the development of policy while also providing direct services such as adoption placements.

As of January 1, 2024, there are 43,633 youth between birth and 20 years of age in foster care in California.

Dependency Court Procedure. When a child is removed from the custody of their parent, they are temporarily placed within the jurisdiction of the child welfare system until a determination about the child’s welfare is made. Within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody, the county social worker must file a petition with the court requesting that a detention hearing take place in order to determine if further detention of the child is necessary. If a petition to declare the child a dependent of the court is filed by the county social worker, then the detention hearing must be held within 48 hours of the petition being filed. At the detention hearing, the social worker outlines the allegations of abuse or neglect made against the parent and why it is necessary to remove the child from the custody of their parent. If the court determines that removing the child from their parents’ custody is in the best interests of the child, the child is then removed. Permanent placement of the child is determined at a later date.

Once a child has been removed from the custody of their parents, a jurisdictional hearing must take place within 15 days. It is at the jurisdictional hearing that the court determines whether the allegations outlined in the social worker’s petition are true. If the allegations are deemed to be true, then the child is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and a dispositional hearing must be held within 60 days of the initial detention hearing in order to determine the permanent placement of the child.

At the dispositional hearing the court determines the parameters of the family reunification plan, which includes where and with whom the child will live, be it with relatives or in a foster family home. The reunification plan also can entail recommendations for parents such as parenting classes, anger management, counseling, substance abuse counseling and testing, and sexual abuse counseling.

Reunification Services. When a child is removed from their parents’ custody and it is determined by the courts and in speaking with the child’s social worker that the child would ultimately benefit from being returned or reunited with the family, the court may order reunification services in order to address the underlying issues or needs of the family that led to the child’s removal in the first place. Reunification services include, but are not limited to: family therapy, parenting classes, substance use disorder treatment, respite care, parent support groups, home visiting programs, and services deemed necessary in order to facilitate a child’s reunification with their parents. For children under three years of age, current law allows six months of reunification services; and, for children over three years of age, 12 months of reunification services are to be offered. Extensions of services are available if the court determines that there is substantial probability that a child will return to their parents’ custody within the extended time period.

In the News. A January 4, 2023, article featured in the Los Angeles Times entitled Parenting classes are routinely ordered in child abuse cases. California isn’t ensuring they work. (Mackenize Mays) detailed cases of parents who were ordered to participate in parenting classes to try and reunify with their children as a result of allegations of neglect and abuse, and whose children later died at the hands of their parents. The article concluded that these court-ordered classes go largely unregulated and that judges are not focused on the quality of the parenting classes. These services are meant to assist in rehabilitating parents and increasing their chances of successfully and safely reunifying with their child, but it is clear that these classes do not keep every parent from continuing the abuse that brought them in contact with the child welfare services system.

The provisions of this bill seek to ensure that parents involved in the child welfare services system are receiving meaningful help while they attempt to reunify with their child by:

• Requiring service providers to have documented success at avoiding out-of-home placement or reducing the length of stay in out-of-home placement, or to provide services with the same documented success;
• Requiring each service provider’s outcomes at the time of the initial selection, and no less than every three years thereafter, to be reviewed;
• Adds to the criteria that deems the family preservation services successful; and,
• Requires additional reporting requirements on outcomes and provides transparency by posting the reports publicly.

According to the Author and Sponsors, these services can cost thousands of dollars per course, and in fiscal year 2022-23, San Diego County alone spent $1.63 million on child and family well-being services, representing over a fifth of their Health and Human Services budget.

Author’s Statement: According to the Author, “When a family is separated by the child welfare system, one of the determining factors for their reunification is the parent’s completion of court-ordered services. However, there is no oversight on the quality and efficacy of these services. [This bill] requires counties to track each service provider’s success rate, report these rates to CDSS, and requires CDSS to post this data on their website. This will ensure that these providers equip parents with meaningful help to ensure that they can safely reunify with their child and minimize rates of foster care re-entry.”

Equity Implications: Research has indicated that the majority of families involved with the child welfare system have incomes below the federal poverty line, are overrepresented by certain racial and ethnic groups, and are often single-parent households living in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these families are already facing enormous barriers to reunify with their children. The provisions of this bill seek to ensure services designed to help them safely reunify with their children have accountability regarding the qualifications as well as their efficacy so that a parent and child can be offered services designed to safely reunify.

RELATED AND PRIOR LEGISLATION:

SB 1056 (Liu), of 2016, would have increased the provision of family reunification and family preservation services, as specified. SB 1056 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

SB 911 (Liu), Chapter 219, Statutes of 2014, imposed additional duties on social workers to include in each social study, evaluation, and supplemental report to the courts a factual discussion of whether a child can be returned to the custody of their parent enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent.

AB 1500 (Wesson) of 1999, would have permitted counties to renew contracts for family preservation services without rebidding them. AB 1500 was vetoed by Governor Davis.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Childrens Advocacy Institute (Sponsor)

Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA)

Children's Advocacy Institute, University of San Diego School of Law

Children's Institute

Culver City Democratic Club

Dependency Legal Services San Diego

Just in Time for Foster Youth (JIT)

Justice2Jobs Coalition

Santa Monica Democratic Club

Opposition

County Welfare Directors Association of California

Analysis Prepared by: Jessica Langtry / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089