In 2006, the legislature created “KinGAP Plus,” but gave CDSS the option to suspend KinGAP Plus if it were determined that implementation would not be advantageous to the state. Well, that came true, so KinGAP Plus is suspended. In the event that this happened, the statute gave CDSS the authority to implement alternative “enhanced benefits” in the existing KinGAP Program. So, this is where we are now: an ACL implementing these enhancement, effective retroactively to October 1, 2006.

The new program enhancements are: coverage of probation youth in foster care but under the supervision of the juvenile delinquency court. (See the ACL for eligibility requirements); the payment of Specialized Care rates if the child got these payments through Foster Care in the month prior to changing to KinGAP; all KinGAP recipients are now entitled to the $100 annual state supplemental clothing allowance, but other clothing allowances under the county foster care payment structure. All Kin-Gap recipients, as well as all relatives of children in permanency planning where guardianship may be recommended, will be notified by mail of the changes.

Because of the complexity in tracking down information on special needs payments prior to transitioning to KinGap, CDSS has given counties “latitude” to taken longer to make the determination of eligibility for these payments. Counties “should make every effort to determine eligibility for the [specialized care] as soon as possible but no later than a child’s next annual redetermination or the end of the state fiscal year, June 30, 2007 whichever is earlier.”  There is no provision for new specialized care determination, or adjustments to the rates – people get whatever was paid through foster care.  Regulations on this whole packet are in development. [Download]

This ACL implements AB 1633, which called for guidelines and best practices to get Title II and SSI benefits for disabled foster children, especially those about to age off of Foster Care. Though “not mandatory,” the ACL discusses the “fiscal and programmatic” advantages of foster care youth having income in place when losing foster care. The ACL includes helpful statements like, “disabled youth emancipating .. without …benefits are especially vulnerable to negative outcomes….” The ACL presents suggestions on how to assess and initiate applications, as well as attaching disability definitions and assessment forms. The letter also mentions a persnickety little problem: federal foster care policy “may” prohibit application for SSI until one month prior to terminating foster care (?), but it takes “several months” to qualify (?) which “may” leave a gap. [Download]

Oh those pesky conflicts. This ACL clarifies that, for purposes of a prospective independent adoption, an Adoption Service Provider (ASP) may not both provide the advisement to the birth parent and the preplacement evaluation of the adoptive family. [Download]

A convenient list of the new changes to foster care, adoption and more.  Expect implementing regulations in the future.   Includes release of sibling names after adoption, benefits issuance to emergency placements with relatives, and more.   [Download]

CDSS and the County Welfare Director’s Association issued this transmittal to provide counties participating in the THPP and THP-Plus with their allocation for state fiscal year 2006-2007. THPP is a community care licensed placement opportunity for youth age 16 to 18 years currently in the foster care system. THP-Plus is a certified placement opportunity for youth age 18-24 years who have emancipated from foster care. Most of the nearly $7 million (approximately $4.5 million) will go to counties already participating in the THP-Plus program. The letter spells out the remainder of the funding hierachy and guides counties regarding the fiscal claiming process. [Download]

Informs counties of statutory changes, effective January 1st, 2006 that permits payment of two full foster care grants when children are placed with their minor parents in foster care. Apparently, California was out of line with the feds, who have permitted this since 2004, when the minor parent’s child is also adjudged a dependent. The letter goes on to discuss placement in “whole family foster care homes” which are specifically geared towards providing minor parents with parenting skills, and includes a higher infant supplement for the non-dependent children of minor parents in foster care. [Download]