California 2021-2022 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 2 D cosponsors

AB 2579 — Child welfare: intensive family finding.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to allocate certain funds through contracts with community-based providers or entities or through local assistance allocations to counties or Indian tribes that support new or expanded programs, services, practices, and training that build system capacity and ensure the provision of a high-quality continuum of care that is designed to support foster children in the least restrictive setting that is consistent with a child's permanency plan. Existing law requires recipients of those funds to use the funds for specified purposes, one of which may be building system capacity for intensive, child-specific recruitment, family finding and engagement, and support programs for children with complex needs. This bill would require county placing agencies, to the extent that funding is available and provided, to implement model practices for intensive family finding and support for foster children, children detained but not adjudicated, and candidates for foster care. The bill would require a county, as a condition of receiving funds for this purpose, to submit a county plan to the department that describes, among other things, the population to be served and the expected outcomes and method for tracking outcomes. The bill would require the county plan to be automatically approved if it complies with those requirements and would require the department to notify a county within 14 business days of receiving the county plan of any required changes to, or additional information needed for, the county plan. The bill would require counties receiving funds pursuant to these provisions to track and report outcomes achieved through the use of the funds. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions through all-county letters or similar written instructions.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

1 added · 1 removed

1 line(s) added, 1 removed.

→
Previous
Latest
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill TextBill Information PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
Bill Number Bill Keyword Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Information >> Bill Search >> Text Bill Text PDF2 Bill PDF |Add To My Favorites | Version:
⬇ Download PDF
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  3. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 13). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Referred to Com. on HUMAN S.

  5. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  6. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 74. Noes 0. Page 4857.)

  7. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  8. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 19).

  9. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

  10. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  11. Referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  12. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  13. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (2)

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Unaffiliated 5000
Democratic 1000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bradford — Yea
Kamlager — Yea
Bates — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

AB 2579 Bennett Assembly Third Reading

Passed 74 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 27003
Unaffiliated 38001
Republican 9000
Total 74004
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (78)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Holden — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Salas — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wood — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Ting — Yea
Low — Yea
Levine — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Daly — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Gray — Yea
Smith — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Cooper — Yea
O'Donnell — Not Voting
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Not Voting
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Not Voting
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Not Voting
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 16 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Democratic 7000
Republican 2000
Total 16000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Levine — Yea
Holden — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Vince Fong — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 3001
Unaffiliated 3000
Republican 1000
Total 7001
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Waldron — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Not Voting
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2579 do?
Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to allocate certain funds through contracts with community-based providers or entities or through local assistance allocations to counties or Indian tribes that support new or expanded programs, services, practices, and training that build system capacity and ensure the provision of a high-quality continuum of care that is designed to support foster children in the least restrictive setting that is consistent with a child's permanency plan. Existing law requires recipients of those funds to use the funds for specified purposes, one of which may be building system capacity for intensive, child-specific recruitment, family finding and engagement, and support programs for children with complex needs. This bill would require county placing agencies, to the extent that funding is available and provided, to implement model practices for intensive family finding and support for foster children, children detained but not adjudicated, and candidates for foster care. The bill would require a county, as a condition of receiving funds for this purpose, to submit a county plan to the department that describes, among other things, the population to be served and the expected outcomes and method for tracking outcomes. The bill would require the county plan to be automatically approved if it complies with those requirements and would require the department to notify a county within 14 business days of receiving the county plan of any required changes to, or additional information needed for, the county plan. The bill would require counties receiving funds pursuant to these provisions to track and report outcomes achieved through the use of the funds. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions through all-county letters or similar written instructions.
Who sponsors AB 2579?
AB 2579 is sponsored by Bennett, Steve (Democratic), Gipson, Mike A. (Democratic), and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 2579?
This bill died with 2021-2022 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2579?
Track AB 2579 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2579

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2579

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →