‘The difference between going to college or prison.’ How Gov. Newsom hurt foster kids | Opinion

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Gov. Gavin Newsom had to confront more than 1,000 bills this month that were approved by the Legislature and sent to him for signature. Of those, Newsom signed nearly 900 into law.

Newsom backed liberal ideas for abortion access, gun control and environmental protection. But, in a move hard to understand, he vetoed a bill that would have provided financial assistance to one of the state’s most vulnerable groups — foster youth.

The governor said he turned down Assembly Bill 1512 for budget reasons. In his veto message, Newsom said the measure would have generated costs outside of the budget process and thus were not properly planned.

Those expenses involve room and board for foster youth. According to an analysis by Assembly staff, would have been in the ballpark of millions to tens of millions of dollars. That may seem a lot, but not in the context of the overall state budget, which is more than $300 billion.

Yet those monies would have made a real difference for certain foster youth who were due to get those payments, but now won’t.

Redirecting payments

AB 1512 was sponsored by the Assembly’s Democratic majority leader, Issac Bryan of Culver City, himself a former foster child.

The legislation would have stopped the way counties now collect payments meant to benefit foster youth, but which the counties instead capture and use to pay for the children’s food and lodging.

Instead, the bill would have directed counties to conserve payments from the federal government to foster youth in accounts that the young people could then take over once they aged out of foster care.

In Los Angeles County, the Department of Child and Family Services collected about $5.4 million in revenue in 2021 that was meant for foster youth, Bryan said.

In explaining the significance of the money to foster children, Bryan said “For youth with disabilities or youth who have lost a parent, this money could be the difference between going to college or going to prison.”

California’s foster youth

His quote may seem overly dramatic, but statistics about foster youth are bleak. According to the state:

Close to 31% of transition-age foster youth experience homelessness.

25% come into contact with the justice system within two years of aging out of foster care.

20% report having a health condition or disability that limits daily activities.

Only 50% complete their high school education, and less than 10% attain a college degree.

There are more than 60,000 children in foster care in California. Fresno County has about 2,000; Sacramento County’s total is just below 2,000. In Stanislaus County, about 660 children are in foster care; in San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara counties, about 900 are foster children.

According to the Children’s Law Center, half of all foster youth have experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences, such as abuse, neglect, a parent who died or is incarcerated, or substance abuse in the home.

The budget challenges faced by the state today are real: California is confronting a $30 billion deficit. But one cause of that is the state’s over-dependence on high earners and their income taxes. If the top earners make less, they pay less in taxes, and the state budget suffers.

The real issue Newsom and the Legislature should wrestle with is putting tax revenues on a more stable footing. That would likely mean hurting certain special interests with lobbying power to stop any such reforms.

Until then, governors and state lawmakers make painful cuts. Sadly, that harms the very people Sacramento Democrats profess to care so much about — the marginalized and vulnerable, like foster youth.

The move across the nation, in both Republican and Democrat-led states, is to funnel Social Security Administration payments into funds for foster children and not use those monies for daily care. Newsom loves to brag about California leading the nation on the next big thing. This is one time he failed to simply follow the best practice.