Covers2000 - Children's Advocacy Institute · 2015. 2. 2. · Title: Covers2000 Created Date:...

Children’sAdvocacyInstitute

This annual report covers the activities of the Children’s Advocacy Institute between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000.

The Children’s Advocacy Institute is part of the University of San Diego School of Law. Contributions to CAI are tax-deductible to the extent the law allows.

SAN DIEGO OFFICEUniversity of San Diego

School of Law

5998 Alcalá Park

San Diego, CA 92110-2429

(619) 260-4806

(619) 260-4753 (fax)

[email protected]

www.acusd.edu/childrensissues

SACRAMENTO OFFICE926 J Street, Suite 709

Sacramento, CA 95814-2704

(916) 444-3875

(916) 444-6611 (fax)

INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE ON

CHILDRENUniversity of San Diego

School of Law

5998 Alcalá Park

San Diego, CA 92110-2429

(619) 260-4806

© 2000 by the Children’s Advocacy Institute

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE

HISTORY & PURPOSE

2000 ACTIVITIES & ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ACADEMIC PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Child Rights and Remedies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Child Advocacy Clinic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9James A. D’Angelo Outstanding Child Advocate Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

RESEARCH PROJECTS AND PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11California Children’s Budget 2000-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Children’s Regulatory Law Reporter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Children’s Legislative Report Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

ADVOCACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15In the Legislature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15In the Courts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23In Administrative Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24In the Public Forum: The Information Clearinghouse on Children . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

COLLABORATION AND LEADERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Children’s Advocates’ Roundtable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Child Support Assurance Pilot Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Interaction with National Child Advocacy Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26Constitutionality of Proposition 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

SPECIAL PROJECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Lawyers for Kids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Price Child Welfare Scholarship and Journalism Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Child Friendly Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

2000 DEVELOPMENT REPORT

CAI STAFF

CAI COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN

. . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . 2

. . . . . . . . . . 28

. . . . . . . . . . 30

. . . . . . . . . . 32

2 CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE

The year 2000 witnessed an expanding discon-nect between the reality facing California’schildren and public discussion of the topic. Forexample, the media focused on the teen vio-lence “crisis” while actual arrest data showedsignificant reductions. California youth homi-

cide arrests have declined for six straight years—and not justa little—from 542 in 1994 to 182 in 1999. Does a remarkabletrend to one-third previous arrest levels suggest the tidal

wave of violence weare told is upon us?Other arrests, both inCalifornia and national-ly, show similar andremarkable decreases,notwithstanding a me-dia and culture which isobsessed with violenceand which tends not toteach our young the realconsequences and lossit portends.

Similarly, theLegislature has its owndisconnect, and haslargely abandoned chil-dren. The Governor’spriorities simply do notinclude long rangeinterests—those centralto the future of our chil-dren. The media andpolitical response is tooverreact to minorcounter-trends, and

ignore underlying, long term and disturbing trends. Hence, asmall decrease in child poverty levels relaxes public atten-tion although current incidence is near historical highs, andremains three times the rate affecting senior citizens. Higher

education slots are not even keeping pace with the increas-ing population, when in fact they need to appreciably exceedpopulation gain so our children will have a chance atemployment in the evolving international economy.

Neither journalists nor political leaders are good atrecognizing gradual trends, no matter how massive ormomentous. Such trends lack an attention-getting “handle.”No boy bites dog. No celebrity. No drama. No cute animal.No heroic rescue. No videotape. Just an unwed birth ratethat has leveled, but at four times historical levels. Over60% of African American children, about 40% of Latinochildren, and over 20% of White children are born to unwedparents. Over half of these children are living below thepoverty line, while two-parent families offer a median ofmore than four times that level—over $50,000 in familyincome. And the unwed problem is not primarily caused byteens—as the politically correct will dutifully cluck over;more than 70% of unwed births are to adult women. Nor isthe problem confined to the female gender; paternal eco-nomic commitment to the four million California childrenresulting from these births averages $26 per month perchild, of which the family gets $14. And that pathetic sumrepresents a record increase.

We need to make the same investment in our chil-dren that our grandparents and parents made in us. Instead,we have enacted Proposition 13 to give ourselves one-fifththe property tax burden as our children and grandchildren tofinance the same services. And almost all of the budget sur-plus will be expended on wealthy adults, with SocialSecurity, Medicare, private pension subsidies, inheritancetax abolition, and tax expenditures for the wealthy dominat-ing the agendas of both political parties.

We have thus far failed to attract significant mediaattention to the real issues facing today’s children, and wehave failed to get our issues on the public agenda.

The state is focused on a single issue as the year2000 ends: The energy crisis and the billions of dollars ofovercharges now assessed and threatening to exhaust allavailable discretionary funding. One group will bear the

Robert C. Fellmeth, Price Professor of Public Interest Law


THE STATE IS FOCUSED ON A SINGLE ISSUE AS THE YEAR 2000 ENDS: THE ENERGY CRISIS AND THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF

OVERCHARGES NOW ASSESSED AND THREATENING TO EXHAUST ALL AVAILABLE DISCRETIONARY FUNDING. ONE GROUP WILL BEAR

THE BRUNT OF THE SPENDING FREEZE WHICH IS NOW BEING IMPOSED INFORMALLY IN SACRAMENTO—OUR CHILDREN.

2000 ANNUAL REPORT 3

brunt of the spending freeze which is now being imposedinformally in Sacramento—our children.

For example, at the end of 2000, we took to theLegislature a modest foster care proposal for the 2001 leg-islative session. The state is literally the legal parent to110,000 foster care children removed from their homes fortheir own protection. When these kids reach 18 years of age,they are “emancipated from the system.” Those familiar withthe system know what that means: they are simply let ontothe streets. Many of these kids are capable of higher educa-tion, while most need at least community college or techni-cal training to obtain meaningful jobs and have a future. Aresponsible parent makes sure that happens. So our billwould make sure that happens for the state’s foster children,providing them with full room and board to the age of 23, solong as they are students in good standing at any accreditededucational institution making progress toward an advanceddegree or certificate. We approached over twenty legisla-tors to author this obviously needed and just measure. Nota single one would do so.

And other problems abound. CAI sponsored legis-lation in 1996 to assure that there would be a safeguard toprevent child homelessness when welfare—TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF)—families are pun-ished by way of reduced monthly payments. Hence, whena parent is unable to find a job or is otherwise “sanctioned”by having the benchmark $620 monthly payment reducedto $410, he/she was to receive vouchers to at least coverrent and utilities. Thus, if rent and utilities are $550, theparent was to receive that amount in vouchers rather thanthe $410 in cash. But the California Department of SocialServices has adopted a rule which provides that the reducedamount of $410 would remain the upper limit, regardless ofrent and utility levels. They simply altered the law to movethe lower sanctioned amount from cash to vouchers. Insteadof amelioration of the penalty to prevent child homeless-ness, the rule accomplishes a double penalty.

These are small examples of a larger and generalmalaise, a movement toward self-indulgence and selfish-ness unprecedented in our nation. Never have so many hadso much and proposed to spend so little of it for their chil-

dren. The evidence is pervasive. TANF support for impover-ished children is less than one-half previous levels.Employment has pulled some from poverty, but the mostrecent research indicates serious detrimental impacts on chil-dren. Education “investment” has been in the form of four-figure checks for large numbers of students who do not nec-essarily need them, and for large numbers of teachers unre-lated to performance. Meanwhile, class sizes in grades 4through 12 are the second highest in the nation. Disabledkids get special education help primarily if they have anattorney—which excludes impoverished kids.

And the vaunted health insurance for children hasbeen a substantial failure, with over $500 million per yearlikely to be returned unused to the federal jurisdiction whichhad offered in vain to fund two-thirds of relatively inexpen-sive child coverage. Here again the media and public offi-cials do not get it.


THE STATE IS LITERALLY THE LEGAL PARENT TO 110,000 FOSTER CARE CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION....

MANY OF THESE KIDS ARE CAPABLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, WHILE MOST NEED AT LEAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE OR TECHNICAL

TRAINING TO OBTAIN MEANINGFUL JOBS AND HAVE A FUTURE. A RESPONSIBLE PARENT MAKES SURE THAT HAPPENS.


How many kids are not currently insured and areineligible for coverage under the maximum federal guide-lines? Just 7%. Instead of covering all kids with preventivecare and assigned physicians, and then billing post hoc anyparents earning over 300% of the poverty line for a portionof medical expenses where substantial, we continue with thecurrent structure of paying folks to sign kids up, withrequired premiums (in addition to co-payments). This is notcash for beer. There is little danger of fraud or excessivespending in providing medical care for our children. Anyresponsible people make certain that need is covered, regard-less of the ability of a parent. Such is the case from the

sophisticated comprehensive coverages throughout Europe,to the sacrifices made in the tribal highlands of New Guinea.But not among the public officials of California. Instead, wecontinue with fourteen separate programs, each with qualifi-cations, forms, payments, and barriers. When our parentsfound out about the polio vaccine, what did they do? Publishfive-page forms? Caution against undocumented child inoc-ulations? Demand payment in advance? No, they lined us upand delivered painful Salk shots, every last one of us. Wewere their children and that was enough. That spirit does notreside in our political leaders today—adults who benefittedmightily from the love and commitment of their parents.


WHEN OUR PARENTS FOUND OUT ABOUT THE POLIO VACCINE, WHAT DID THEY DO? PUBLISH FIVE-PAGE FORMS? CAUTION AGAINST UNDOCUMENTED

CHILD INOCULATIONS? DEMAND PAYMENT IN ADVANCE? NO, THEYLINED US UP AND DELIVERED PAINFUL SALK SHOTS, EVERY LAST ONE OF US.

WE WERE THEIR CHILDREN AND THAT WAS ENOUGH.

Apparently, at least one generation of adults has managed toresist the example of their parents.

CAI has its work cut out for it. We need to advocatemuch more extensively. We need to be more voluble beforethe state’s agencies. We need to litigate aggressively. Weneed to take no prisoners. We need to eschew political cor-rectness where it conflicts with the interests of those we rep-resent, and to whom we owe a special fiduciary duty. Hence,we must be willing to take on both conservatives and liber-als. We should demand implementation of both of their pos-itive agendas for children. Instead, we have allowed them tocancel each other’s beneficial plans in a nefarious and undis-cussed “contract on our children.” Conservatives blame irre-sponsible adult decisions to reproduce, “welfare as a way oflife,” and private exploitation of state generosity. Liberalsmove reproductive decisions off the table. Conservativesrespond by convincing the body politic to stop funding thesafety net for children. Meanwhile, both pander shamelesslyto the elderly, a population with more medical coverage thanchildren (at five times the cost), and which enjoys one-thirdthe poverty level—but a group which responds to surveys andpolls, votes, and dominates as campaign contribution sources.

A pox on both of their houses. Prospective parentsshould be responsible. Reproductive decisions should be onthe table, front and center. For starters, children should havea recognized right simply to be intended...is that too muchto ask? Yes, two parents are preferable to one. Yes, fathersmatter. A lot. But for those adults who want to work andwho act responsibly, public help should be forthcoming, andfor children—none should be denied. The current contracton our children needs to be reversed into a contract for ourchildren.

In terms of demeanor, child advocates havetaken the “be nice” road for thirty years. It has been andcontinues to be a failure. While it makes life a great dealmore pleasant for us, it does not benefit those we repre-sent. It does not capture the attention of the media. Itdoes not put children on the public policy table. It doesnot lead to public resources or protective laws. To repre-sent our clients responsibly, we must cease caring aboutwhat others think of us as advocates and begin to expresswhat is a justifiable outrage. Our political leaders, withthe media close in tow, have betrayed the human obliga-tion to pass down the line a world better than the onehanded to us by our parents. We are poised to be the gen-eration which will most fail in the obligation which isarguably the highest ethical calling of our species.

Partly as a result of our impotence politically, theGovernor’s office has quietly asked policy committee chairsto kill any bill in the 2001 legislative year which involvesany spending whatsoever. Whether they will comply isunclear, but it does not matter because any measures whichescape policy committees will no doubt die in the suspense



OUR POLITICAL LEADERS, WITH THE MEDIA

CLOSE IN TOW, HAVE BETRAYED THE HUMAN

OBLIGATION TO PASS DOWN THE LINE A

WORLD BETTER THAN THE ONE HANDED TO

US BY OUR PARENTS. WE ARE POISED TO BE

THE GENERATION WHICH WILL MOST FAIL IN

THE OBLIGATION WHICH IS ARGUABLY THE

HIGHEST ETHICAL CALLING OF OUR SPECIES.

file of each house’s appropriations committee—without theinconvenience of a public vote. They will meet the fate of22 such bills in the year 2000, placed in suspense and notpulled for a vote. No vote, no accountability.

Instead of investing in our children, we shall onlybe henceforth paying the energy company cartel in Texas tothe tune of at least $14 billion now, and apparently muchmore down the road. Those corporations bought out thederegulated energy plants of our California utilities at threetimes book value. Although seemingly an excessive price,they will recover their entire investment before the end of2001, and then some. Our Legislature is floating bonds topolitically soften the immediate impact, but to extend theprice paid forward for twenty or more years of payments—plus interest, plus tax revenue loss because that interest is taxdeductible. In the shell games and waste of public assets nowunderway, the children usually lose, and their prospects arenow bleaker than ever.

Where will the resources come from to expandhigher education? The 15–19-year-old population is going toswell by 20% by 2004, and we will experience an increase inthat population over the 1995–2015 period greater than anyother state in the nation (57% versus a 22% national aver-age). Where is the money going to come from to restoreCalifornia’s schools? Is it all really going to come from test-ing and “accountability” gimmicks, and occasional thousand

dollar checks...or will it come from the moresophisticated and long-term commitment ofsmaller class sizes, more teachers, and bettertrained and committed teachers? Where arethe resources for that?

We have been expanding most assidu-ously our tax expenditures, now including267 programs costing $28 billion in foregonetax revenues each year, more than we nowspend on our elementary schools and univer-sity system combined. Children and educa-tion depend upon General Fund revenueswhich the special interests in Sacramentohave been sequentially shredding for twenty

years. We invest a much lower percentage of our personalincome on our children than did our parents. And the entirerange of options at the state level is whether excess energypayments will burden us for five or fifty years, and federallywhether we should give $1.6 trillion or merely $1.2 trillion tomostly wealthy adults, or whether the $400 million differenceshould go to pharmaceutical subsidies, Social Security, andMedicare subsidies for our senior citizens.

What is CAI going to do about it? We need toobtain financing to reach a critical mass for effective advo-cacy. Here is part of our wish list:

� Funding of $200,000 a year for three years wouldexpand our existing Information Clearinghouse for Children,to make it a generator of media stories about the plight ofchildren, to raise public consciousness. We need to increaseattention to children beyond school shootings, and find thejournalistic handles apparently necessary for public atten-tion. Lacking votes and campaign money, that is our majoravailable asset.

� We need funding to conduct research and a com-prehensive campaign on the obligations of the male genderto children. This conservative theme is best sounded by amale-led organization, and one with a “liberal” reputation forobvious reasons of credibility. Certainly the promotion ofresponsible reproductive, marital, and support practices by



IN THE SHELL GAMES ANDWASTE OF PUBLIC ASSETS

NOW UNDERWAY, THE CHILDREN USUALLY LOSE,

AND THEIR PROSPECTS ARE NOW BLEAKER THAN EVER.

men can leverage benefits to children in incalculable ways,and could possible help to advance somewhat the culturalsea change necessary to break the conservative—liberal log-gerhead jeopardizing both private responsibility and publicinvestment. If we have more of the first, middle America willgive us the second.

� The California Children and FamiliesCommission was created by the voter-approvedProposition 10 in November 1998. Its goal is to promoteearly childhood development, enabling children to behealthy, to live in a healthy and supportive family envi-ronment, and to enter school ready to learn. We need tohave experienced advocates in front of the regulatoryagencies that make important decisions affecting youngchildren—decisions that will directly impact theCommission’s ability to meet its goal. Where are thoseadvocates? Shouldn’t the allocation of $100 million inpublic funds at the state level include at least 1% of it forsuch leveraged advocacy?

� Funding of $300,000 would help launch a self-sustaining “Child Friendly” trademark program. Created as aseparate entity, the Child Friendly Foundation would licenseits trademark for use on qualified products to indicate thatthe product is safe for children and is not made throughexploitive child labor. The Foundation would assist the mar-ketplace, stimulate responsible corporate behavior, and gen-erate licensing fees, the bulk of which would be given tochild advocacy organizations.

� CAI and its parent organization, the Center forPublic Interest Law, are seeking a grant to develop a Mastersin Public Interest Law program at the University of SanDiego School of Law, to increase the quantity and quality ofpublic interest advocates (including child advocates), and toprovide a unique educational experience for a wide range ofattorneys—from recent law graduates to veteran practition-ers who want to shift priorities in their later years.

� It is our goal to convince a child-spirited attor-ney, business, or individual to endow the nation’s first childadvocacy “chair” or faculty position. The holder of thechair—which would be named after the generous funder—would be a full-time advocate for children, and wouldengage in clinical teaching of future child advocates. Such aposition would leverage impact by training advocates as wellas through litigation and advocacy for children in the year2010. And it would still be there plugging away for childrenin the year 2110, and 2210, and 2310. A portion of theendowment would generate income which would add to thebase, to accommodate inflation and maintain a viable pres-ence in perpetuity. How would it be possible to leave a moreimportant permanent legacy?

� We must add three professionals to our staff—including one accomplished litigator—so we can regain thecritical mass size we achieved in the early 1990s.

Most of these proprietary goals will allow us tocontinue what we already do on a larger and more effectivescale. Currently, we focus on five activities: (1) the trainingof child advocates through law school and clinical education;(2) the publication of an annual California Children’s Budgetto educate the public and officials and to illuminate the con-dition of children in the state, and population/inflationadjusted spending, in an accurate and footnoted format; (3)the publication of a Children’s Regulatory Law Reporter totrack and broaden the actions of state regulatory agenciesimpacting children; (4) litigation to protect and promote chil-dren’s interests; and (5) an advocacy and public educationagenda, including the publication of the Children’sLegislative Report Card on the performance of the state’s120 legislators. This last activity—our legislative agenda—currently includes our own bill to improve family foster caresupply and quality (critical to stimulating adoptions andimproving the plight of the state’s 110,000 foster care chil-dren). We will also try to persuade the state to adopt thenotion of true “presumptive eligibility” for California’s chil-dren for health care coverage—coverage for which fundinghas been provided by federal appropriation and whichCalifornia will likely be returning to Washington at unprece-dented levels, as 20% of the state’s children remain uncov-ered medically.

Our litigation agenda, resources permitting, willinclude the lawful implementation of the rent and utilityvoucher safety net assurance for children affected by TANFpenalty cuts to their families, as discussed above.

It is clear that we have much work before us. In order to continue our efforts, CAI depends on the

generosity of others. In 2000, CAI received assistance frommany persons and organizations, to whom we are most grate-ful. In addition to Sol and Helen Price—who have providedus with a continuing legacy of support which allows us tofunction—we thank The ConAgra Foundation, Inc., theRosenberg Foundation, the Mattel Children’s Foundation,the Sierra Health Foundation, The Leon Strauss Foundation,The Ryland Group, Inc., the California Kids’ Plates Program,and numerous individuals as acknowledged in CAI’s 2000Development Report.

Robert C. Fellmeth, Executive DirectorChildren’s Advocacy InstitutePrice Professor of Public Interest Law




In 1989, Professor Robert C. Fellmeth founded theChildren’s Advocacy Institute as part of the Center forPublic Interest Law (CPIL) at the University of SanDiego (USD) School of Law. Staffed by experiencedattorneys and advocates, and assisted by USD law stu-dents, CAI works to improve the status and well-being

of children in our society by representing their interests andtheir right to a safe, healthy childhood.

CAI represents children—and only children—in theCalifornia Legislature, in the courts, before administrativeagencies, and through public education programs. CAI strivesto educate policymakersabout the needs of children—about their needs for econom-ic security, adequate nutri-tion, health care, education,quality child care, and protec-tion from abuse, neglect, andinjury. CAI’s mission is toensure that children’s inter-ests are effectively represent-ed whenever and wherevergovernment makes policy andbudget decisions that affectthem.

For example, CAIhas drafted and successfullyadvocated the passage of billsleading to some twenty newstatutes, including a revisionof the state’s regulation ofchild care facilities, therequirement of children towear helmets when ridingbicycles, a series of laws toimprove the state’s collectionof child support from absentparents, a law assuring coun-sel for abused children inneed of legal representation, a swimming pool safety measure,the “Kid’s Plate” custom license plate to fund children’s pro-grams, and others. Through litigation, CAI intervened onbehalf of children’s groups to preserve over $355 million instate funding for critical preschool child care and developmentprograms, and compelled a state agency to adopt mandatorysafety standards for public playgrounds to prevent unnecessaryinjuries to children. CAI annually publishes the CaliforniaChildren’s Budget, a 650-page analysis of past and proposedstate spending on children’s programs; in 1995, the NationalAssociation of Child Advocates recognized that “the

Children’s Advocacy Institute’s work on budget analysis forchildren remains the most thorough and well-researched docu-ment nationwide.” Since 1996, CAI’s InformationClearinghouse on Children has worked to stimulate moreextensive and accurate public discussion of important chil-dren’s issues.

In 1993, CAI created the Child Advocacy Clinic at theUSD School of Law, to help provide child advocates to thelegal profession. In the Clinic, law student interns practice lawin dependency court, representing abused children under spe-cial certification, or engage in policy advocacy at the state

level, drafting legislation,research and writing reports,and assisting in litigation proj-ects. Many graduates of thisprogram have gone on tobecome professional childadvocates.

CAI’s academic programis funded by the University ofSan Diego and the firstendowment established at theUniversity of San DiegoSchool of Law. In November1990, San Diego philanthro-pists Sol and Helen Price con-tributed almost $2 million toUSD for the establishment ofthe Price Chair in PublicInterest Law. The first holderof the Price Chair is ProfessorRobert Fellmeth, who alsoserves as CAI’s ExecutiveDirector. The chair endow-ment and USD funds combineto finance the academic pro-grams of both CPIL and CAI;to finance advocacy activities,CAI professional staff raise

additional funds through private foundation and governmentgrants, test litigation in which CAI is reimbursed its attorneys’fees, and tax-deductible contributions from individuals andorganizations.

The Children’s Advocacy Institute is guided by theCouncil for Children, a panel of professionals and communityleaders who share a vision to improve the quality of life forchildren in California. CAI also functions under the aegis ofthe University of San Diego, its Board of Trustees and man-agement, and its School of Law.

Robert C. Fellmeth with Sol and Helen Price

HISTORY & PURPOSE

ACADEMIC PROGRAM

CAI administers a unique, two-course academ-ic program in child advocacy at theUniversity of San Diego School of Law. Thecoursework and clinical experience combineto provide future lawyers with the knowledgeand skills they need in order to represent

children effectively in the courts, the Legislature, and beforeadministrative agencies.

Child Rights and RemediesStudents must complete Professor Robert

Fellmeth’s three-unit course, Child Rights and Remedies, asa prerequisite to registration in the Child Advocacy Clinic.Child Rights and Remedies surveys the broad array of childadvocacy challenges: the constitutional rights of children,defending children accused of crimes, child abuse anddependency court proceedings, tort remedies and insurancelaw applicable to children, and child property rights and enti-tlements.

Child Advocacy Clinic The Child Advocacy Clinic offers law student

interns two options: (1) in the dependency court component,they may work with an assigned attorney and social workerfrom the Dependency Section of the San Diego Office of thePublic Defender representing abused or neglected childrenin dependency court proceedings; or (2) in the policy projectcomponent, students may engage in policy work with CAIprofessional staff involved in state agency rulemaking, leg-islation, test litigation, or similar advocacy. In addition totheir field or policy work, all Clinic interns attend a weeklyseminar class.

In the Spring 2000 semester, six law students(Stacey Amodio, Katherine Layton, Christina McClurg,Amanda McLaughlin, Adriana Suarez, and CharlotteWilder) were enrolled in the policy section with AdjunctProfessor Margaret Dalton, and received training in legisla-tive, regulatory, and advocacy focusing on current children’sissues. In addition to developing their advocacy skills, thestudents developed expertise in specific areas; the semester’s

focus included sexual orientation and hate crimes, babyabandonment, and sibling rights in dependency proceedings.Additionally, some students attended a San Diego DomesticViolence Coordinating Council training session in recentlegislation, including new changes in child custody determi-nations; others observed a Juvenile Law Section meetingsponsored by the San Diego County Bar Association. Onestudent worked with Professor Robert Fellmeth on draftingamendments to the CAI-sponsored foster care bill, SB 949(Speier).

That semester, for the first time, students who hadcompleted a semester in the policy section of the Clinic hadthe opportunity to enroll in an advanced section. Five lawstudents (Mimi Adams, Jane Babin, Valerie Jones, ElizabethKuchta, and Sharon Smith) participated in this advancedcourse and worked on a variety of projects, such as draftinglegislation to mandate the inclusion of special education stu-dents in the state’s accountability program, and legislativeanalyses on protection against sexual orientation discrimina-tion in the schools, hate crimes, and mental health issues.One student worked in the Domestic Violence RestrainingOrder Clinic at Family Court, and another worked withProfessor Fellmeth on research for the California Children’sBudget 2000–01.



THE CHILD ADVOCACY CLINIC OFFERS LAW STUDENT INTERNS TWO OPTIONS:

...THEY MAY WORK WITH AN ASSIGNED ATTORNEY AND SOCIAL WORKER FROM THE

DEPENDENCY SECTION OF THE SAN DIEGO OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER

REPRESENTING ABUSED OR NEGLECTED CHILDREN...OR...STUDENTS MAY ENGAGE IN

POLICY WORK WITH CAI PROFESSIONAL STAFF INVOLVED IN STATE AGENCY

RULEMAKING, LEGISLATION, TEST LITIGATION, OR SIMILAR ADVOCACY.

Warren Hall, University of San Diego School of Law


Also during the Spring 2000 semester, five law stu-dents (Juanita Blanco, Amy Garcia, Jenny Kim, KristinaLupariello, and Charlotte Wilder) participated in the Clinic’sdependency section. In addition to working at the PublicDefender’s Office representing abused and neglected childrenin dependency court proceedings, all of these students attendedweekly classroom sessions conducted by Professor Fellmeth.

In the Fall 2000 semester, six law students (SapnaIyer, Tamara McCormic, Tiffany Salayer, Dan Tompkins, Eva

Turella, and Sonia Williams) were enrolled in the policy sec-tion with Professor Robert Fellmeth, and received training inlegislative, regulatory, and advocacy focusing on currentchildren’s issues. Each student worked on semester-longadvocacy projects; this semester’s focus included foster carereform, follow-up on the state’s child care inspectionrequirements, analysis of Proposition 21 and the lawsuitschallenging it across the state, streamlining the appealsprocess in dependency court proceedings, and researching

child-related regulatory proposals forinclusion in the Children’s RegulatoryLaw Reporter.

During the Fall 2000 semester,five law students (Steven Andreacola,Colleen Gleason, Lynnae Lee, ChristinaMcClurg, and Holly Sullivan) participat-ed in the Clinic’s dependency section.

CAI is very grateful to the MattelChildren’s Foundation for its support ofthe Child Advocacy Clinic for the pastfive years.

James A. D’Angelo OutstandingChild Advocate Awards

On May 26, 2000, the Universityof San Diego School of Law held itsGraduation Awards Ceremony in ShileyTheatre. At that time, CAI had the pleas-ure of awarding the James A. D’AngeloOutstanding Child Advocate Awards tofour graduating law students, for theirexceptional participation in CAI’s ChildAdvocacy Clinic.

Jane Babin was recognized forher exemplary participation in CAI’sPolicy Clinic, where she was an invalu-able part of CAI’s child advocacy effortfor over two years. Katherine Layton,Joseph Raskin, and Charlotte Wilderwere each recognized for their outstand-ing participation in CAI’s DependencyClinic, where they each effectively repre-sented abused and neglected children inSan Diego County.

The award is a tribute to JimD’Angelo (BA ‘79, JD ‘83), who passedaway in April 1996. Funding for theaward is made possible by generousdonations from several USD School ofLaw alumni. CAI is grateful to HalRosner (JD ‘83) and all of Jim’s class-mates for their generous gifts.


RESEARCH PROJECTS & PUBLICATIONSCalifornia Children’s Budget 2000–01

At first blush, California’s 2000–01 budgetwas a good thing,with the state’s $12.4billion surplus in-vested in education,social programs, and

tax relief for all Californians. In fact,however, the budget constitutes aneleventh straight year of disinvestmentin children most in need, yet againneglecting a developing underclass ofimpoverished children projecting toover one-third of the future population.

On June 27, 2000, CAIreleased its eighth annual CaliforniaChildren’s Budget at a State Capitolpress conference hosted by SenatorMartha Escutia (D-Montebello). TheCalifornia Children’s Budget2000–01 is a 650-page analysis of recent condition indicatordata (with 2,000 endnotes specifying sources); legislativeand court developments; major child-related federal/state/local spending from 1989, adjusted for inflation andpopulation; the Governor’s proposed levels as revised inMay; and recommended spending. According to the report,the budget reflects three continuing flaws:

(1) Impoverished children are not a major invest-ment priority, even with available funds.

(2) The tax base feeding the General Fund contin-ues to be eaten away year after year through deductions andcredits now amounting to over $32 billion; by 2002, the newbudget will increase the deductions and credits by another$2.2 billion, only18% of which is child-related.

(3) Much of the new money directed toward chil-dren is “one time only” spending, because of the Davis

Administration’s stubborn antipathy to “adding to the base.”The budget does include some important benefits

for children, including increased funding for K–12 education(including important incentives and investment in teacher

supply and quality), overdue increased physi-cian reimbursement rates, child health enroll-ment outreach, some higher education addi-tions (including substantial Cal Grant fund-ing increases), and increases to child carehelp (including a refundable tax credit).

Specifically, the findings of theCalifornia Children’s Budget 2000–01include the following:

� The 2000–01 overall investment inchildren, as a percentage of Californians’ per-sonal income, is significantly less than thatmade twenty years ago. The source of mostchild spending is the General Fund; if we col-lected the same percentage of total personalincome for it as did our parents, we wouldhave $3.5 billion more—above and beyondour $12.4 billion surplus. Although the

Governor rejects most additions to the future spending base,he and the Legislature do not hesitate to subtract from thefuture revenue base. Tax benefits generally continue foreverunless affirmatively ended, and that requires a two-thirdsvote. They are magnets for special interest advocacy and cansacrifice long-term investment in children for short-termgain by voter blocs—a priority different than that of our par-ents and grandparents.

� In addition to the gradual reduction of theGeneral Fund itself, the proportion of General Fund spend-ing going to children has gone from 84% in 1980–81 to 76%in the 2000–01 budget. About 20% of the surplus will direct-ly address the most important child-related needs.

� Although the K–12 education base has beenincreased by more than the token amount for 1999–2000(which was one-quarter of 1%), it still remains well below


CHILDREN’S ADVOCACY INSTITUTE

CALIFORNIACHILDREN’S BUDGET

2000–01

Robert C. FellmethPrice Professor of Public Interest Law

Executive Director, Children’s Advocacy Institute

RESEARCH PROJECTS & PUBLICATIONS

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, THE BUDGET REFLECTS THREE CONTINUING FLAWS:

(1) IMPOVERISHED CHILDREN ARE NOT A MAJOR INVESTMENT PRIORITY, EVEN

WITH AVAILABLE FUNDS. (2) THE TAX BASE FEEDING THE GENERAL FUND CONTINUES

TO BE EATEN AWAY YEAR AFTER YEAR THROUGH DEDUCTIONS AND CREDITS....

(3) MUCH OF THE NEW MONEY DIRECTED TOWARD CHILDREN IS

“ONE TIME ONLY” SPENDING, BECAUSE OF THE DAVIS ADMINISTRATION’S

STUBBORN ANTIPATHY TO “ADDING TO THE BASE.”

the national average, especially when one subtracts the “one-time expenditures.” Items such as the teacher supply, incen-tives, and low-performing school investment are welcome,but California remains at second from the bottom of thenation in student class size for grades 4–12.

� The budget has a welcome $195 million forrefundable child care credits for the working poor, but the needhere is five times that level, and most of it will go to the uppermiddle class with families eligible up to $100,000 a year inincome. We also need tax incentives for quality and supplyincrease in communities where more child care is needed.

� The budget includes no Earned Income TaxCredit for the working poor most in need of a boost towardself-sufficiency (unlike Minnesota, New York, and otherstates). Basic safety net support is down to 73% of the pover-ty line, and many children of those leaving TANF rollsremain below the poverty line and are hungry.

� The budget includes funds for “HealthyFamilies” outreach; 93% of California’s kids are insured orare eligible for public medical coverage. To bar the other 7%from receiving medical services, we have over fourteen frag-

mented programs with separate barriers. Under the adoptedbudget, over one million eligible children will remain uncov-ered. We have $4.3 billion in federal Children’s Health funds(at a 2–1 match), and 80% of it will be sent back to D.C.—the largest give-back of federal money in the nation’s histo-ry. The California Children’s Budget 2000–01 proposes thatCalifornia cover all children, providing universal preventivecare, and if a child of a parent earning over 300% of thepoverty line receives substantial medical services, bill theparent post hoc on a sliding scale. The state could then useremaining federal funds and red tape savings on tax creditsto employers for part of their contribution to private cover-age of dependents under 300% of the poverty line.

� The budget does not include adequate fundingfor prevention: a needed crusade through advertising, pub-lic education, and parenting education in our schools.California should use the skills of Madison Avenue to pro-mote respect for each child’s basic right to be intended bytwo parents. The 30% unwed birth rate has leveled, butremains near historical highs, and contrary to perception,most of those births are to adult women. On the paternal



side, although child support reforms have almost doubledcollection, the average amount collected for almost fourmillion California children is $26 per month per child owedsupport by an absent parent (of which the government keeps$12).

� Although the budget adds new funds for high-er education, it is not increasing capacity beyond popula-tion growth from 1990. We must addto the base significantly beyond popu-lation growth so our children willhave jobs in the future internationaleconomy.

The California Children’sBudget 2000–01 was distributed toevery member of the CaliforniaLegislature and, as with previousChildren’s Budgets, became a valuableresource document for state budgetnegotiations. With the generous sup-port of The ConAgra Foundation, Inc.,CAI has begun work on the CaliforniaChildren’s Budget 2001–02, scheduledfor release in May 2001.

To obtain a copy of theCalifornia Children’s Budget 2000–01,contact CAI at (619) 260-4806. Thereport is also available atwww.sandiego.edu/childrensissues.

Children’s Regulatory LawReporter

Another of CAI’s unique pub-lications is the Children’s RegulatoryLaw Reporter, which focuses on anoften ignored but very critical area oflaw: regulations adopted by govern-ment agencies. For each regulatoryproposal discussed, the Children’sReporter includes both an explanationof the proposed action and an analysisof its impact on children. The publica-tion is targeted to policymakers, childadvocates, community organizations,and others who need to keep informedof the actions of these agencies.

In 2000, CAI released thefourth issue of the Children’s Reporter(Vol. 2, No. 2), which discussed over50 proposed and pending Californiaregulatory changes which affect chil-dren. Among other things, the issuediscussed rulemaking proposals on

playground safety, Healthy Families, child support,California Children’s Services medical eligibility, child wel-fare services community treatment facilities, and charterschools.

The current and back issues of the Children’sReporter are available on CAI’s website atwww.sandiego.edu/childrensissues.



Children’s Legislative Report CardYet another unique and informative CAI publica-

tion is its Children’s Legislative Report Card, an annual doc-ument which analyzes California legislators’ votes on child-friendly bills.

Last November, CAI published the 2000 edition ofits Children’s Legislative Report Card, which includes a nar-rative description of the major child-related issues consid-ered by the Legislature in 2000, as well as detailed descrip-tions of 23 child-friendly bills in the areas of economic secu-rity, child support collection, health care, injury prevention,child care, education, and child abuse prevention and inter-vention. The Report Card also includes a chart documentingeach legislator’s floor votes on these bills. Because this was

the final year of a two-year session, this issue of the ReportCard also includes each legislator’s cumulative score for theentire 1999–2000 legislative term.

Through their votes on important bills, legislatorscan make a real difference in the lives of California's chil-dren. All too often in the political arena, legislators “take awalk” rather than stand up for children—and children sufferas a result. The Report Card provides a record of children’spolicy progress in the legislative session, and the votes thatmade it happen.

CAI is pleased to announce that 31 legislatorsreceived 100% marks for the 23 bills graded in the 2000 term.Of those legislators, the following eighteen received 100%marks for the entire two-year legislative session: Senators John

Burton and Hilda Solis, and Assemblymembers ElaineAlquist, Ellen Corbett, Martin Gallegos, Robert Hertzberg,Hannah-Beth Jackson, Sheila Kuehl, John Longville, AlanLowenthal, Kerry Mazzoni, Kevin Shelley, DarrellSteinberg, Virginia Strom-Martin, Helen Thomson, TomTorlakson, Antonio Villaraigosa, and Scott Wildman.

The 2000 edition of the Report Card also discussesthe difficulty in commanding accountability in the leg-islative process because of the use of the “suspense” file.Many significant child-related bills are not part of thegrading process, because legislative leaders held themcaptive in the suspense files of the Senate and AssemblyAppropriations Committees, refusing to allow the bills toeven come up for a vote—thus killing these measureswithout having to vote against them publicly. The sus-pense file policy of setting aside policy items with majorcost implications until the Budget Act is passed and rev-enues are accounted for is fiscally sound. But suspensefile decisions should ultimately be made in a publicforum with public votes for accountability.

Many of the most significant bills for the most vul-nerable children failed to make the priority list for releasefrom the suspense files of the Assembly and Senate.Those priority lists are drafted by just a handful of legis-lators (the Speaker of the Assembly, the President ProTempore of the Senate, minority party leaders, and thechair and vice chair of the Appropriations Committees),after considering the personal and political priorities ofindividual bill authors. Many of the bills killed on sus-pense files passed on bipartisan votes with wide marginsin policy committees and in prior floor votes (see belowfor examples of suspense file fatalities). CAI believes thatofficial actions must be subject to public accountability.The suspense file system allows legislators to kill impor-tant bills without getting their hands dirty. As such, it isan affront to the democratic process.

The current and back issues of the Children’sLegislative Report Card are available on CAI’s website atwww.sandiego.edu/childrensissues.



ADVOCACYIn the Legislature

Facing a record budget surplus of more than $18billion over last year’s revenue projections, childadvocates urged policymakers to begin the longoverdue, significant investment in our childrenthat is so badly needed. Instead, officials madeonly baby steps toward that investment: one-time

infusions of cash, without the long-term commitment to the base thatCAI advocates as critical to sustain-ing the economic health of this statefor future generations.

Notwithstanding, CAISenior Policy Advocate KathrynDresslar (who has since resigned tojoin the staff of AssemblymemberDarrell Steinberg) helped secureseveral legislative victories for chil-dren in 2000, particularly in theareas of child care, K–12 education,higher education, and juvenilecrime prevention.

Child care benefitted fromsome important wins legislativelyand in the state’s 2000–01 BudgetAct. Significant investment inCalifornia’s child care infrastructureis critical to furthering the success-ful welfare-to-work activities ofCalifornia’s CalWORKs program,as well as assisting the hundreds ofthousands of non-aided low-incomeworking families that struggle on a daily basis to find andkeep affordable, quality child care. The Children’s AdvocatesRoundtable, convened by CAI, singled out child care as a toppriority for Roundtable members to support as a coalition thisyear. As a result, California’s 2000–01 Budget Act includedreinstatement of the child care tax credit and significantincreases ($138 million) in new spending for important childcare and child development programs, including:

� cost of living adjustments (COLAs) of 3.17% forchild care program reimbursement rates and “catch-upCOLAs” to partially reimburse centers for past years whenno COLA was provided;

� modest increases in subsidized child care pro-grams. While the Legislature approved $75 million in half-year costs for 24,000 new subsidized child care slots forinfants to five-year-olds, the Governor approved only $40million of that appropriation and set aside a total of $42 mil-lion in gubernatorial vetoes of Legislature-approved childcare spending for one-time child care expenditures to bedetermined later;

� a $47 million increase to expand State Preschoolfor an additional 100,000 children overa two-year period that began inJanuary 2000;

� $40 million for half-yearexpansion of full-day general childcare for children up to age five;

� $55.1 million for QualityImprovement Activities (an increasethis year of $29.6 million), including$15 million for a child care salaryretention incentive program, $6 mil-lion to bring child care center play-grounds into compliance withCalifornia’s newly-adopted minimumsafety standards for public play-grounds, child care center upgrades tomeet the requirements of theAmericans with Disabilities Act, fund-ing to double the size of a program totrain CalWORKs recipients as childcare teachers, and $1.5 million todevelop a centralized waiting list forsubsidized child care; and

� $3 million for a half-yearexpansion of migrant day care.

K–12 education continued to be a “stated” priorityfor the Davis Administration. Per pupil spending inCalifornia public schools was increased to $6,694, anincrease of $669 per pupil (or 11%) over last year—anamount still lagging in comparison to even average per pupilspending nationally. This and other spending was enough ofan increase to scuttle a California Teachers’ Association-sponsored signature gathering effort to place an initiative onthe ballot to raise per-pupil spending to the national average.Much of the increase was subsumed in one-time teacherbonuses and adjustments for population and inflation, withschool size and teacher supply and quality addressed only


ADVOCACY

FACING A RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS,...CHILD ADVOCATES URGED POLICYMAKERS TO BEGIN THE LONG OVERDUE, SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN OUR CHILDREN THAT IS SO BADLY NEEDED. INSTEAD,

OFFICIALS MADE ONLY BABY STEPS TOWARD THAT INVESTMENT.

State Capitol, Sacramento, CA

minimally and not to scale. The Budget Act included: � $143 million for teacher recruitment and reten-

tion at low-performing schools;� $85 million to provide bonuses to teachers and

other certificated staff at low-performing schools thatachieve improvements in pupil test scores;

� minor raises in the beginning salaries for schoolteachers;

� $26 million to expand advanced placement (AP)course offerings;

� teacher tax credits (ranging from $250 to $1,500each depending on the number of years of service in teach-ing);

� Governor’s Merit Scholarship Program ($1,000scholarships to be awarded to each of the top-performing10% of students in grades nine through twelve at each pub-lic high school, without regard to the student’s familyincome); and

� $109 million in K–12 professional developmentfor teachers provided by a higher education consortium ledby the University of California (UC), California StateUniversity (CSU), and private colleges.

The budget makes several one-time expenditures ofcurrent year funds for K–12 education, including:

� $425 million for the School Improvement and

Pupil Achievement Block Grant, $245 million of which isprovided to school districts, county offices of education, andcharter schools for specified improvements and the remain-ing $180 million to school sites for local priorities as deter-mined by school site councils;

� $350 million in one-time spending for bonuses toschool sites and school employees for meeting test scoreimprovement criteria;

� $250 million for the English Language andIntensive Literacy Program, a new summer school/after-school program for English language learners in gradesK–12; and

� $175 million in education technology grants topurchase or lease computers.

Unfortunately, two of the larger programs—teachertax credits and merit scholarships—give huge sums to largenumbers of persons without specification or individualizedneed. Although gratitude inducing, this spending would havemore impact if focused on teacher supply and qualityenhancement investment, and on class size reduction forgrades 4–12, where California ranks among the worst in thenation.

Higher education spending also increased some-what in the Budget Act. The UC won an 18% increase inGeneral Fund support over last year’s budgeted amount. TheCSU system posted a 13% increase over last year. Both UCand CSU budgets will reduce summer enrollment fees to thesame level charged in the fall, winter, and spring.California’s community college spending increased 16%increase over last year’s funding totals.

However, inflation and population increases reducethese raw number percentages by one third to one-half inactual impact. And more important, higher education capac-ity is not increasing to match population growth from 1991,even though a much higher percentage of youth need thateducation now for future jobs.

The most significant achievement of theLegislature and Governor this year was the enactment of SB1644 (Ortiz/Poochigian) which, beginning in the 2001–02budget year, will entitle all academically and financially-eli-gible students to a Cal Grant for higher education. No longerwill Cal Grants be available only to the earliest applicants; ifa student makes the grades in high school and meets thefinancial requirements for student aid, he or she will get aCal Grant to help achieve higher education goals. Whileimportant as a benefit to many youth in need, the scope of



THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACHIEVEMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR THIS YEAR WAS THE ENACTMENT OF SB 1644 (ORTIZ/POOCHIGIAN) WHICH,

BEGINNING IN THE 2001–02 BUDGET YEAR, WILL ENTITLE ALL ACADEMICALLYAND FINANCIALLY-ELIGIBLE STUDENTS TO A CAL GRANT FOR HIGHER EDUCATION.

this help is not as significant as press releases sug-gest. It funds tuition for public college at about$1,500 per year and will pay for less than one-halfof typical private school tuition. Taking room,board, and other costs into consideration, the grantwill offset from 10%–25% of annual college costs.

Another significant win for California chil-dren and youth is contained in the agreement ulti-mately reached by the Legislature and GovernorDavis to dramatically increase state investment injuvenile crime prevention strategies in AB 1913(Cardenas/Schiff). Among other things, this bill aug-ments local juvenile justice program funding by anadditional $121.3 million. To gauge the scope of thisinvestment, consider that in 1997 California spent$200 million on all juvenile crime prevention activ-ities, compared to $1.8 billion spent that same yearto prosecute and incarcerate juveniles, according toa study by The California Wellness Foundation. Nosignificant increases in state juvenile crime preven-tion spending have occurred since that report. Andwith the voter’s March 2000 approval of Proposition21—Pete Wilson’s “Juvenile Crime Initiative” (alsosupported by Governor Davis)—considerably moreis expected to be spent on prosecution and incarcer-ation of juveniles after they have gotten into trouble,after people have been victimized.

AB 1913’s $121.3 million boost to juvenilecrime prevention spending is significant—a 61%increase in the state’s commitment to protect publicsafety by preventing juvenile crime before it happens,while preserving and enhancing future opportunities forCalifornia’s at-risk youth. Countless academic studies,Governor-appointed blue ribbon task forces, the League ofWomen Voters, and various commissions have studied theproblem of juvenile crime. All have come to the same conclu-sion: long-term reductions in juvenile crime will only resultfrom significant investment in crime prevention strategies. Itis time for California to heed those recommendations. CAIapplauds the enactment, at long last, of the policy in AB 1913.

Following is a listing of some of the key legislativevictories achieved in 2000.

Child PovertyAB 1233 (Aroner) clarifies counties’ authority to

offer “grant-based on-the-job training” activity inCalWORKs, as post-assessment or as community service,permitting diversion of grants for use in payment of wages toparticipants, making them eligible for earned income taxcredit and other benefits of wage-based labor. (Chapter 933,Statutes of 2000)

SB 962 (Escutia) requires counties to offer recipi-ents of CalWORKs the option of direct deposit banking if

they offer it to county employees. (Chapter 795, Statutes of2000)

SB 2013 (Committee on Health and HumanServices) requires DSS to develop (with the participation ofstakeholder groups) a simpler and shorter application formfor non-CalWORKs food stamp cases. (Chapter 682,Statutes of 2000)

Child HealthAB 2415 (Migden) allows qualified immigrant chil-

dren to enroll in the Healthy Families children’s insuranceprogram, regardless of their date of entry into the UnitedStates, thus repealing the restriction of eligibility to HealthyFamilies to only those families who entered the U.S. on orbefore August 22, 1996. (Chapter 944, Statutes of 2000)

AB 2900 (Gallegos) provides one year of continu-ous eligibility for children enrolled in Medi-Cal, consistentwith the one year of continuous eligibility for childrenenrolled in the Healthy Families program. (Chapter 945,Statutes of 2000)

SB 87 (Escutia) simplifies the Medi-Cal redetermi-nation process for families of former CalWORKs recipients,



and makes it easier for families to stay on Medi-Cal whenthey leave cash assistance for work. (Chapter 1088, Statutesof 2000)

SB 567 (Speier) expands the requirement to usechild passenger safety restraints in vehicles for all childrenup to six years of age or 60 pounds. (Prior law only requireduse of child passenger safety restraints for children up to fouryears or 40 pounds.) This bill will sunset in one year, unlessextended by additional legislation. (Chapter 675, Statutes of2000)

AB 2260 (Shelley) establishes the Healthy SchoolsAct of 2000. Among other things, the bill requires eachschoolsite to maintain records of all pesticide use at theschoolsite for four years and make the records available tothe public upon request; requires, on an annual basis, theschool district designee to provide to all staff and parents orguardians of pupils enrolled at a school written notificationaddressing, among other things, expected pesticide use; andrequires the school district designee to post warning signsprior to application of pesticides at a schoolsite. (Chapter

718, Statutes of 2000)

Child Care and DevelopmentSB 1703 (Escutia) appropriates $42 million for

one-time child care expenditures for child care facility grantsand loans. (Chapter 704, Statutes of 2000)

AB 212 (Aroner) appropriates $15 million for sup-plementing staff compensation in state subsidized child carecenters. The bill also encourages the leveraging of localProposition 10 monies and other local funding sources byrequiring local child care planning councils to develop a dis-tribution plan to encourage increased compensation and stafftraining to access AB 212 monies—a plan that must beapproved by the State Department of Education. (Chapter547, Statutes of 2000)

EducationSB 1644 (Ortiz/Poochigian) recasts the Cal Grant

financial assistance program beginning with the 2001–02school year to entitle all eligible students who make thegrades and exhibit the financial need to obtain Cal Grantfinancial assistance. The program will no longer be adminis-tered on a “first come, first served” program funded at 25%



of each graduating class. This bill is one of the greatest edu-cation investments in terms of enhancing California’s con-tinued economic growth and exhibiting a commitment toequality in educational opportunity since the G.I. bill.(Chapter 403, Statutes of 2000)

Child ProtectionSB 2160 (Schiff) This CAI-sponsored bill estab-

lishes a legal presumption that children in dependency courtwould benefit by the appointment of independent legal coun-sel. In the event a court decided not to appoint counsel for achild, it must list the reasons why in the court record.(Chapter 450, Statutes of 2000)

SB 1368 (Brulte) provides that no parent or otherperson having lawful custody of a child 72 hours old oryounger may be prosecuted for child abandonment or endan-germent if he or she voluntarily surrenders physical custodyof the child to any on-duty employee at a public or privatehospital emergency room or any additional location as des-ignated by the local board of supervisors (e.g., fire stations,etc.). However, immunity from prosecution will not apply ifthe child shows signs of abuse when surrendered. (Chapter824, Statutes of 2000)

AB 2464 (Kuehl) provides that any order made bythe juvenile court regarding the custody of, or visitationwith, a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court at thetime the juvenile court terminates its jurisdiction, shall be afinal judgment and shall remain in effect after that jurisdic-tion is terminated. (Chapter 921, Statutes of 2000)

Juvenile JusticeAB 1913 (Cardenas/Schiff) doubles the state

appropriation to a popular local law enforcement fundingstream (Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund orSLESF). The bill also requires that 50% of the funding beexpended on a comprehensive multiagency juvenile crimeprevention plan, to be approved by the Department ofCorrections, and requires evaluation reports to the

Department and to the Legislature on the efficacy of specif-ic juvenile crime prevention efforts. (Chapter 353, Statutesof 2000)

Unfortunately for the children of California, it wasnot all good news from Sacramento in 2000. It is equallyimportant to note where the Legislature and the Governorfailed children, despite considerable public and legislativeinterest in addressing the problems, and plentiful state rev-enues. In the two years of Governor Davis’ tenure asGovernor, it has become clear that if a bill is not included inthe Budget Act—even bills with very modest pricetags ordelayed costs—it will likely be vetoed or it will never makeit off the Appropriations (fiscal) Committee’s suspense file,as explained above. All bills with appropriations or costimplications in excess of $150,000 are placed on the “sus-pense file” and, after a select few legislators consider avail-able revenues and political priorities, some are voted out ofsuspense. The remainder are left to die without a public vote.

Suspense File FatalitiesCAI’s top priority bill for this year, SB 949

(Speier), was among the casualties in the AssemblyAppropriations Committee. This important bill would haveincreased the number and quality of licensed foster familyproviders available to care for abused and neglected childrenremoved from their homes, by raising the reimbursementrates these families receive and by instituting financialincentives for them to seek additional training. The bill alsorequired the California Department of Social Services toenhance its recruitment of foster families and adoptive par-ents for these vulnerable children. The measure enjoyed con-siderable Republican and Democratic support, yet it died onthe Appropriations “suspense file,” never receiving a publicvote by that Committee.

Despite the fact that SB 949 would have increasedfamily foster care rates in a four-step process (5% increaseper year for four years), the bill actually would have result-ed in immediate (and considerable) savings to the state and


ADVOCACY

CAI’S TOP PRIORITY BILL FOR THIS YEAR, SB 949 (SPEIER), WAS AMONG THE CASUALTIES IN THE ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.

THIS IMPORTANT BILL WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER AND QUALITYOF LICENSED FOSTER FAMILY PROVIDERS AVAILABLE TO CARE FOR ABUSED

AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN REMOVED FROM THEIR HOMES, BY RAISING THE REIMBURSEMENT RATES THESE FAMILIES RECEIVE AND BY INSTITUTING

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO SEEK ADDITIONAL TRAINING.

THE MEASURE ENJOYED CONSIDERABLE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT, YET IT DIED ON THE APPROPRIATIONS “SUSPENSE FILE,”

NEVER RECEIVING A PUBLIC VOTE BY THAT COMMITTEE.

counties who share the cost of alternative placements ingroup homes and foster family agencies at up to ten times thecost of licensed foster family homes. More importantly thansaving money, SB 949 would have resulted in more familyfoster care placements—settings in which most foster chil-dren fare better and in which many are adopted by their fos-ter parents.

Sometimes bills withminor fiscal implications, or nocosts, also die on the suspensefile. Such was the case foranother CAI-sponsored bill. SB1391 (Schiff) would have pro-vided more accountability inthe child welfare system byreversing the presumption ofconfidentiality in dependencycourt proceedings in a five-yearpilot project in interested coun-ties. Academic and mediascrutiny of how the child wel-fare system responds to theneeds of children in foster careis stymied by the current secre-cy of the system. CAI has con-cluded that, instead of protect-ing children’s privacy, currentlaw serves more to protect theoverburdened, under-resourcedbureaucracy of social workers,dependents’ counsel, and courtofficials—a system that needsfundamental reform by any-one’s standards. CAI has joinedthe growing ranks of childadvocates calling for moreopenness and accountability inthe dependency court. Severalstates have already made thechange. This bill was quite con-troversial, but—here’s thekicker—had no costs, otherthan a Judicial Council studyon the effectiveness of the five-year pilot project, costs consid-ered by Judicial Council to beabsorbable. Still, the bill wasplaced on and improperly died on the suspense file.

So who do we hold accountable for the demise ofthese two important bills and countless other child-friendlybills that met the same fate? Who should we work on tomake our case next year? A select few decide which bills willbe voted off the suspense file. In the Assembly, such deci-

sions were made last session by Appropriations CommitteeChair Carole Migden, Vice Chair Bill Campbell, Speaker ofthe Assembly Bob Hertzberg, and Minority Leader ScottBaugh. In the Senate, suspense file decisions were made bySenate Appropriations Committee Chair Patrick Johnston,Vice Chair Tim Leslie, President Pro Tempore John Burton,and Minority Leader Jim Brulte. Both groups were guided

by the priority lists offered bythe bills’ authors. Did theauthor sacrifice one bill infavor of another on the sus-pense file with more politicaloomph? Or did party leaderssacrifice the bill in a game ofpolicy horsetrading? Did theGovernor send word to his fel-low Democrat Chairs and leg-islative leadership that he didnot want certain bills to get tohis desk, saving him the trou-ble and embarrassment ofvetoing them? Complicatingthe situation is the fact that theGovernor has been raisingcampaign money to the tuneof over $1 million a monthsince being in office; withProposition 208 on hold in thecourts, that campaign moneycan be transferred to any othercandidate. Particularly in anelection year, there must havebeen a powerful urge to pleasethis Governor. What reallyhappened to these bills?Nobody will say.

As is noted above, thesuspense file policy of settingaside policy items with majorcost implications until theBudget Act is passed and rev-enues are accounted for is fis-cally sound. But suspense filedecisions should ultimately bemade in a public forum withpublic votes for accountability.

Governor’s VetoesMore bad news for children came from the pen of

Governor Gray Davis, who vetoed several major pieces oflegislation that would have made significant improvementson several different fronts. Among these casualties are thefollowing:



THE SUSPENSE FILE POLICY OF SETTING ASIDE

POLICY ITEMS WITH MAJOR COST IMPLICATIONS

UNTIL THE BUDGET ACT IS PASSED AND

REVENUES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IS FISCALLY

SOUND. BUT SUSPENSE FILE DECISIONS SHOULD

ULTIMATELY BE MADE IN A PUBLIC FORUM

WITH PUBLIC VOTES FOR ACCOUNTABILITY.

Child PovertyAB 1995 (Aroner) This

CAI-sponsored bill would havecreated a welfare debt forgive-ness program for child supportobligors on the condition theypay current child support obliga-tions in full and on time until thechild support obligation is dis-charged (when the child turns 18or graduates from high school).Only the debt owed to the countyand state government to reim-burse for welfare benefits wouldhave been forgiven (not debtowed to the family) and forgive-ness would occur only after thechild support obligation has beendischarged upon child’s reachingmajority. During the time theobligor is making regular childsupport payments, interest wouldhave ceased to accrue on the wel-fare debt owed to counties. If theobligor gets 60 days behind with-out satisfying a good causeexception, the welfare debt wouldhave fallen back upon the childsupport obligor. This bill waspassed by the Legislature butvetoed by Governor Davis. In hisveto message, the Governor said:“While it eventually might pro-duce increased collections suffi-cient to offset the cumulativecosts of the program, this meas-ure would result in immediateGeneral Fund costs upon itsimplementation while any offsetting savings would be bothlonger term and more speculative.”

Child NutritionAB 2631 (Knox) would have provided modest

grants to nonprofits or government agencies for start-upor expansion of summer food programs and after-schoolnutrition programs. This bill was passed by theLegislature but vetoed by Governor Davis. In his vetomessage, the Governor said: “While this program mayhave merit, it will cost an additional $1.2 million cur-rently not appropriated in the 2000 Budget Act. This pro-gram should compete with other meritorious programs innext year’s budget.”

Child HealthAB 93 (Cedillo) would have made it easier for families

to remain on Medi-Cal by eliminating the authority of theDepartment of Health Services to require status reports ofenrollees more frequently than once a year. This bill was passedby the Legislature but vetoed by Governor Davis. In his vetomessage, the Governor said: “This bill would, in effect, result incontinuous eligibility for every Medi-Cal beneficiary for a min-imum of one year from the date that eligibility is established.This bill would go beyond the expansion of Medi-Cal eligibilityagreed upon as part of the Budget Act of 2000 and could resultin benefits for persons no longer in need of Medi-Cal.”

AB 1722 (Gallegos) would have eliminated bur-densome and unnecessary paperwork to determine the assets


ADVOCACY

of families (aside from income) that is not required by fed-eral law in determining eligibility for Medi-Cal. Besides animmediate savings in administrative costs of $3 million, thischange in law would have made the program more user-friendly for the estimated 7.3 million uninsured Californians.This bill was passed by the Legislature but vetoed byGovernor Davis. In his veto message, the Governor said:“This bill would exempt all assets, other than income, fromMedi-Cal eligibility determinations under the 1931(b) pro-gram, beginning January 1, 2001. This bill is inconsistentwith the eligibility rules agreed upon as part of the BudgetAct of 1999 and related budget trailer bill legislation.”

EducationAB 1197 (Firebaugh)

would have allowed Californiastudents who are applying for alawful immigration status to payinstate tuition to attend state com-munity colleges or public univer-sities if they meet other require-ments. This bill was passed by theLegislature but vetoed byGovernor Davis. In his veto mes-sage, the Governor said: “In orderfor undocumented students to beexempt from paying non-residenttuition charges as called for in thislegislation, [the Illegal Immigra-tion Reform and ImmigrantResponsibility Act of 1996] wouldrequire that all out-of-state legalresidents be eligible for this samebenefit. Based on Fall 1998 enroll-ment figures at the University ofCalifornia and the California StateUniversity alone, this legislationcould result in a revenue loss ofover $63.7 million to the State.”

SB 1348 (Vasconcellos) would have required theSuperintendent, in consultation with the Secretary forEducation, to submit a proposal to convene a summit, on orbefore September 1, 2001, regarding the advisability ofdeveloping a master plan for parenting education in non-school settings. The bill would have required theSuperintendent to convene and conduct the summit pursuantto the approved plan, and would have required the variousstate departments to participate in the summit and collect,complete, and submit to the summit available researchregarding, among other things, the causal relationshipbetween the presence or absence of parenting skills and dys-functional behavior. This bill was passed by the Legislaturebut vetoed by Governor Davis. In his veto message, the

Governor said: “While I believe parenting education canprovide valuable skills for parents and prospective parents, Iam vetoing this bill for the same fundamental reason as lastyear because it would initiate a broader state involvement ina subject that is the rightful domain of families, faith-basedentities and non-profit organizations.”

Child ProtectionSB 147 (Alpert) As originally introduced,

this bill would have extended Medi-Cal coverage for fosteryouth until age 21. When that provision was adopted into thestate Budget Act, this bill was amended to specify that, forthe purpose of establishing eligibility for benefits under the

Medi-Cal program for independ-ent foster care adolescents underthat option, there shall be noincome or asset test applied. Thisbill was passed by the Legislaturebut vetoed by Governor Davis. Inhis veto message, the Governorsaid: “This bill does not appearnecessary. The Department ofHealth Services currently doesnot impose income or asset testson eligibility for this new option-al eligibility group.”

SB 2091 (Ortiz) wouldhave required the Department ofSocial Services to administerpilot programs in three counties(selected through a request forproposals process) to provideenhanced services to emancipat-ing foster youth. This bill wouldhave begun the long overdueprocess of identifying ways topromote success for this highlyvulnerable population of youngadults. This bill was passed by

the Legislature but vetoed by Governor Davis. In his vetomessage, the Governor said: “...[T]he services component ofthis bill is duplicative of the existing Independent LivingProgram, which currently operates in each county, providingservices to all youth between the ages of 16 and 21.Implementing a pilot project to provide the same or similarservices that currently are provided to all youth on astatewide basis is unnecessary. This bill permits an emanci-pated youth to reside with under age foster care youths. Ibelieve this raises significant public policy concerns.”

Apart from what the Legislature did and did not do in2000 is the larger subject of what it is unlikely to do under theDavis Administration’s hostility to making long-term invest-ment in impoverished children. Davis’ multiple vetoes on the



few bills that made it to his desk to help ourmost vulnerable children will have a chillingeffect on legislators’ willingness to reintro-duce these or similar bills next year.

In the CourtsOn June 5, 2000, the U.S. Supreme

Court issued its highly-anticipated decisionregarding the rights of grandparents andother nonparents to contest for visitation ofchildren. In Troxel v. Granville, the Courtheld that a Washington state statute whichallowed nonparents to petition for visitationof a child against the child’s parent’s wish-es, and which placed no limits on either thepersons who may petition for visitation orthe circumstances in which such a petitionmay be granted, was unconstitutional asapplied in this case.

The state statute at issue—Washington Rev. Code Section26.10.160(3)—permitted “[a]ny person” topetition for visitation rights “at any time”and authorized state superior courts to grantsuch rights whenever visitation may serve achild’s best interest. Petitioners Troxel peti-tioned for the right to visit their deceasedson’s daughters. Respondent Granville, thegirls’ mother, did not oppose all visitation,but objected to the amount sought by theTroxels. The Washington Superior Courtordered more visitation than Granvilledesired, and she appealed. The Washington State Court ofAppeals reversed and dismissed the Troxels’ petition. Inaffirming, the Washington Supreme Court held that Section26.10.160(3) unconstitutionally infringed on parents’ funda-mental right to rear their children. Reasoning that the U.S.Constitution permits a state to interfere with this right only toprevent harm or potential harm to the child, the Washingtoncourt found that the statute does not require a threshold show-ing of harm and sweeps too broadly by permitting any personto petition at any time with the only requirement being that thevisitation serve the best interest of the child.

In affirming the Washington Supreme Court, theU.S. Supreme Court held that the statute, as applied toGranville and her family, violates her due process right tomake decisions concerning the care, custody, and control ofher daughters. The Court further held that the “breathtaking-ly broad” statute effectively permits a court to disregard andoverturn any decision by a fit custodial parent concerningvisitation whenever a third party affected by the decisionfiles a visitation petition, simply because a state judgebelieves that a “better” decision could be made.

CAI Executive Director Robert C. Fellmeth,through his position as Chair of the National Association ofCounsel for Children’s (NACC) Amicus Curiae Committee,filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in thisproceeding, urging the Court to recognize the rights of chil-dren to certain nonparental relationships. Professor Fellmethserved as counsel of record for NACC and helped to draft thebrief, along with Professor Joan Hollinger, Professor DonaldDuquette, and NACC Executive Director Marvin Ventrell. Inits brief, NACC argued that a properly tailored law whichpreserves children’s rights to certain nonparental relation-ships while at the same time protecting parental due processwould benefit children as well as their families. In its hold-ing, the Supreme Court did in fact recognize that childrenmay have significant interests in third party or nonparentalrelationships. Further, the Court’s decision does not precludestates from adopting properly-crafted nonparental visitationstatutes, consistent with the NACC position. Moreover, twodissents went further and discussed the child’s right to a par-ent as a concomitant right to the adult “right to parent”—themost advanced discussion of child constitutional rights inthis context to date.


IN ITS HOLDING, THE SUPREME COURT DID RECOGNIZETHAT CHILDREN MAY HAVE SIGNIFICANT INTERESTS IN THIRD PARTY OR NONPARENTAL RELATIONSHIPS.

ADVOCACY

The NACC amicus curiae brief is avail-able on the Children’s Advocacy Institute’s website(http://www.sandiego.edu/childrensissues/nacc.html); theU.S. Supreme Court’s decision is available online athttp://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html.

In Administrative Agencies One of the few child advocacy organizations with

expertise in the regulatory forum, CAI represented childrenbefore various administrative agencies during 2000. Forexample, CAI is a regular participant in the regulatory work-groups of “The P3 Project” (Program, Policies, andProcedures) of the new Department of Child SupportServices (DCSS) to implement the major child supportreform laws sponsored by CAI. Public hearings on the workproduct of these workgroups began in Fall 2000, and finalregulations are to be adopted by DCSS by July 1, 2001.

CAI has also advocated extensively before theDepartment of Social Services and DCSS regarding theimplementation of child support assurance in California.Among other things, CAI has articulated the need fornecessary federal waivers; CAI also supported counties’efforts to distribute more of the collected child supportpayments to participating clients, and to make clients eli-gible for additional services in the CalWORKs program(such as transportation, health care, and subsidized childcare).

In the Public Forum: The InformationClearinghouse on Children

In 1996, CAI instituted the “InformationClearinghouse on Children” (ICC), with the goal ofstimulating more extensive and accurate public discus-sion on a range of critical issues affecting the well-being, health, and safety of children. Supervised byCAI professional staff, the ICC provides a research andreferral service for journalists, public officials, andcommunity organizations interested in accurate infor-mation and data on emerging children’s issues. The ICChas an extensive mailing list of media outlets, publicofficials, and children’s advocacy organizations, anddistributes copies of reports, publications, and pressreleases to members of the list, as appropriate.

CAI is grateful to The California WellnessFoundation and the Maximilian E. & Marion O.Hoffman Foundation, Inc. for their past support of theInformation Clearinghouse on Children.

COLLABORATION & LEADERSHIPChildren’s Advocates’ Roundtable

During 2000, CAI was able to continueto coordinate and convene theChildren’s Advocates’ Roundtablemonthly meetings in Sacramento,thanks to the financial support of theSierra Health Foundation. The

Roundtable, established in 1990, is an affiliation of roughly150 statewide and regional children’s policy organizations,representing over twenty issue disciplines (e.g., child abuseprevention, child care, education, poverty, housing, juvenilejustice). The Roundtable is committed to providing the fol-lowing:

� a setting where statewide and locally-based chil-dren’s advocates gather with advocates from other children’sissue disciplines to share resources, information, and knowl-edge, and strategize on behalf of children;

� an opportunity to educate each other about thevariety of issues and legislation that affect children and




youth—facilitating prioritization of issues and minimizinginfighting over limited state resources historically budgetedfor children’s programs;

� an opportunity to collaborate on joint projectsthat promote the interests of children and families; and

� a setting to foster a children’s political move-ment, committed to ensuring that every child in California iseconomically secure, gets a good education, has access tohealth care, and lives in a safe environment.

Although many Roundtable members cannot attendeach monthly meeting, CAI keeps them up-to-date onCapitol policymaking and what they can do to help through“Roundtable FAXblasts” ofmeeting minutes and e-mailupdates. The Roundtable alsomaintains an updated directoryof California children’s advoca-cy organizations and is explor-ing other joint projects, such asa dedicated page in thestatewide children’s newspaper,the Children’s ADVOCATE.Unlike many collaborationswhich seem to winnow awaywith age, the Children’s Advo-cates’ Roundtable has grown inmembership and influence withpolicymakers each year.

In November 2000, theChildren’s Advocates Round-table presented Governor GrayDavis with a list of budget prior-ities for 2001–02, collectivelyreferred to as “Prerequisites toLearning.” The Roundtableagrees that improving the state’seducational system is integral toCalifornia’s economic vitality.However, not all children arriveat the schoolhouse door with thesame preparation and familysupport systems; much more work needs to be accomplishedto ensure that all children are well-equipped to learn.Accordingly, the Roundtable members identified the keyactions which must be taken in the next legislative session:

� Provide health care for children and families.California has failed to take full advantage of federal fund-ing to expand access to affordable health care for childrenand their families. It is time to explore methods to recruitfamilies and their children for affordable health care—andthen ensure that such coverage is maintained. Families needa system that is easy to navigate and free from any stigma,intimidation, or confusion.

� Increase economic security for working fami-lies. One child in four lives in poverty in California. The life-long consequences of poverty cannot be underestimated;poor children are more likely to be born at low birth weightor die in infancy. Later in life, they are more likely to repeata grade or drop out of school.

� Ensure adequate nutrition and food assis-tance. Families continue to experience hunger, even duringa time when our economy is booming. The state shouldexpand school-based meal programs, facilitate the establish-ment of after-school and summer food programs, andincrease outreach efforts for food stamp assistance.

� Improve outcomesfor foster youth. The fostercare system serves roughly110,000 of the state’s most vul-nerable children. There is acritical shortage of licensedfoster families ready to providesuch children with homes.Lacking t

Covers2000 - Children's Advocacy Institute · 2015. 2. 2. · Title: Covers2000 Created Date:...

Documents

Transcript of Covers2000 - Children's Advocacy Institute · 2015. 2. 2. · Title: Covers2000 Created Date:...