News Mashup for February 2021
California SB 739: Universal Basic Income for Transition Age Foster Youth
On February 19, 2021, California State Senator David Cortese introduced Senate Bill 739 to create universal basic income for California’s foster care youth transitioning out of the child welfare system. Under SB 739, individuals exiting foster care at age 21 would receive $1,000 per month for 3 years, unconditionally. The bill, which was sent to committee on February 22, is modeled after a local pilot program initiated by Cortese in his previous position as Santa Clara County Supervisor. As Laurence Du Sault writes in an article for the Bay Area News Group, the pandemic recession is boosting interest in basic income programs. The Santa Clara experiment, which was launched in 2020, was the first in the nation to specifically address the needs of transition age foster youth. Citing California Court Appointed Special Advocates, Du Sault reports that “Only about half of California’s young people in foster care graduate high school, and 40 percent experience homelessness within a year and a half of leaving the system.” Cortese’s basic income bill could prove a “lifeline for California’s most vulnerable populations.” Click on the links below to learn more.
Laurence Du Sault. February 22, 2021. Santa Clara County is Model for Plan to Give $1,000 a Month to California Foster Youth: Sen. Dave Cortese Proposes Statewide Basic Income Pilot. The Mercury News. Retrieved March 16, 2021 from https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/02/22/santa-clara-county-is-model-for-plan-to-give-1000-a-month-to-california-foster-youth/?mc_cid=d8efa40eae&mc_eid=b6b08d977d.
Laurence Du Sault. July 27, 2020. Santa Clara County Launches Basic Income Program for Foster Youth. The Mercury News. Retrieved March 18, 2021 from https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/27/santa-clara-county-launches-basic-income-program-for-foster-youth/.
MH MAA Funds go Unused in Counties Across California
Under the 2016 Mental Health Medi-Cal Administrative Activities (MH MAA) program, California counties can claim reimbursement for the cost of mental health program administration and planning, yet a significant cache of MH MAA funds have gone unclaimed for several years running. This month, the second of an investigative series published by California Health Report revealed that “Out of California’s 58 counties, only 15 claimed MH MAA funds for the 2019-20 fiscal year. Among those who did, most received a tiny fraction of the total statewide reimbursement of $41.7 million.” Similar levels of underuse were reported for previous years. Alex Briscoe, a former director of Alameda County’s health agency, said in an interview with the series’ author, Claudia Boyd-Barrett, that “Claiming more administrative funding could increase counties’ mental health budgets by millions of dollars, freeing up other money for direct mental health care.” Several counties surveyed during the California Health Report investigation cited an overly complex and time-consuming application process as reasons for their disinterest. Click the links below to learn more.
Boyd-Barrett, Claudia. February 9, 2021. As Need for Mental Health Care Surges, A Funding Program Remains Underused. California Health Report. Retrieved March 8, 2021 from https://www.calhealthreport.org/2021/02/09/as-need-for-mental-health-care-surges-a-funding-program-remains-underused/
Boyd-Barrett, Claudia. October 3, 2019. Millions Unclaimed: Behind California’s Troubled Mental Health Care Funding System, California Health Report. Retrieved March 19 2021 from https://www.calhealthreport.org/2019/10/03/millions-gone-unclaimed-behind-californias-troubled-mental-health-care-funding-system/
Governor Newsom’s K-12 “Trailer Bill” Seeks to Close Loophole Diverting Funding for High Needs Students
State Assemblywomen, Shirley Weber and Sharon Quirk-Silva introduced AB 1835 in August 2020 to close a loophole in the State’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that allowed education funding intended for at-risk youth to be diverted to other purposes. AB 1835 followed a State Auditor report published in November 2019 shedding light on this weakness concluding that the “state has not ensured that funding is benefiting students as intended” because the law didn’t explicitly require LCFF funds to be spent only on education of at-risk youth (English learners, youth in foster or low-income households) and require tracking of local LCFF expenditures. While acknowledging the good intentions of AB 1835, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill on Sept 30, 2020 citing flaws that prohibit its smooth and timely implementation, promising that a “simpler solution” would be outlined in his January 2021 budget proposal.
This February, Newsom released specifics of his “simpler solution,” capturing both praise and criticism from child advocates. As reviewed by John Fensterwald in a recent issue of EdSource, Newsom’s proposed statutory changes require districts “to spell out in a new section of the following year’s Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) how much [LCFF funding] was left over and why, and, once again, how they plan to spend it.” At issue is a proposed qualitative spending section in the new LCAP, which allows districts to monetize and include improvements made at little or no cost. Vincent Stewart, the Executive Director of the STEM Network at Children Now, is cited by Fensterwald as saying “the proposal would invite districts to justify underspending for deserving students by resorting to [a] hard-to-disprove” calculus of costing out such enhancements. Click on the links below to learn more.
John Fensterwald, February 9, 2021, Gov. Newsom Calls for Closing Big ‘Loophole’ in School Funding for High-needs Students. EdSource. Retrieved March 8, 2021 from https://edsource.org/2021/gov-newsom-calls-for-closing-big-loophole-in-school-funding-for-high-needs-students/648406?mc_cid=ab8da172bd&mc_eid=b6b08d977d.
Walter, D. October 14, 2020. Veto Hurts Educations of At-risk Kids. CalMatters. Retrieved October 16, 2020 from https://calmatters.org/commentary/2020/10/veto-hurts-educations-of-at-risk-kids/.
Auditor of the State of California. November 5, 2019. K-12 Local Control Funding. The State’s Approach Has Not Ensured That Significant Funding is Benefiting Students as Intended to Close Achievement Gaps (Report 2019-101). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved on October, 16 2020 from https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2019-101/auditresults.html
Update on California’s 2021-2022 Legislative Session
SB 508 Mental Health Coverage for School-based Services. This bill, introduced February 17, 2021 by lead author Senator Henry Stern (27th District) would authorize Local Education Agencies to have an appropriate mental health professional provide brief initial interventions at a school campus when necessary for all referred pupils, including pupils with a health care service plan, health insurance, or coverage through a Medi-Cal managed care plan.
AB 563 Office of School-Based Health. This bill, introduced February 11, 2021 by lead author Assembly Member Marc Berman (District 24) would establish an Office of School-Based Health programs in the California Department of Education to provide leadership and assistance to school districts offering health programs through the public schools. Co-sponsors include: California School Boards Association, California School Nurses Organization, California Student Councils Association, California Teachers Association, and Teachers for Healthy Kids.
AB 234 Office of Suicide Prevention. This bill, introduced January 12, 2021 by Assembly Member James Ramos (District 40), would remove the limitation specified in AB 2112 (introduced by Ramos in February 2020; Governor Approval September 2020) that, should the office be established, all duties and responsibilities of the office be carried out using existing staff and resources.
AB 988 Mental health: mobile crisis support teams: 988 crisis hotline. This bill, introduced by lead author Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (District 16), would establish the 988 Crisis Hotline Center in compliance with existing federal law and standards governing the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. The bill would require the Office of Emergency Services to take specified actions to implement the hotline system, including hiring a director with specified experience and designating a 988 crisis hotline center or centers to provide crisis intervention services and crisis care coordination to individuals accessing the 988.
More Stories in February: California schools consider extending next school year while mental health remains a concern EdSource - 2.2.21; Medi-Cal overhaul sounds good on paper CalMatters - 2.15.21; Medicaid Forward: Behavioral Health Wellbeing Trust 2.25.21; Child Psychiatrists Warn That the Pandemic May Be Driving Up Kids' Suicide Risk NPR – 2.2.21; For Some Teens, It’s Been a Year of Anxiety and Trips to the E.R. New York Times – 2.23.21; Klobuchar, Young, Van Hollen Introduce Legislation to Support Mental Health and Addiction Services During Coronavirus Pandemic Office of US Senator Amy Klobachar - 2.8.21
