SECTION 1.
The Legislature finds and hereby declares all of the following:(a) In 2015, 62,035 children and youth in California were living in foster care.
(b) Without the adequate number of foster parents and homes, more abused and neglected children will be placed into group homes and homes operated by foster family agencies, at a substantially higher cost to the state and counties.
(c) Under the current system, the outcomes for youth who turn 18 years of age in foster care are often grim. Many leave the system without family support, at high risk of becoming victims of crime, becoming involved with the judicial
system, homelessness, and unemployment. Many fail to complete high school and do not pursue higher education or vocational training.
(d) Foster youth who exit the system with permanent links to caring adults or families have a better chance for successful outcomes. When youth grow up in a family, that family is the major vehicle preparing them for the adult world. The values, skills, challenges, and opportunities that shape and define adulthood are woven into the fabric of their everyday lives. Through these lifelong connections, they discover what it means to learn, love, and live.
(e) To attain the goal of permanency, the state must be engaged in creating incentives that identify responsible adults and families willing to take on this task. New communities need to be tapped to improve outcomes for foster youth exiting the system. All government entities should have an
opportunity to participate in this goal through state incentives.
(f) Cities are not directly involved in finding quality, family-based households for foster youth, but the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process creates many challenges in meeting the state’s requirement to plan for future population growth. Especially difficult to plan are low- and very low income housing. Most cities are not actually required to zone for affordable housing. Instead, most zone at certain densities and presume these densities will allow affordable housing to be built. Since the housing element does not address the final outcome, setting the density does not guarantee affordability. In fact, property owners may ultimately decide to build luxury condominiums too expensive for low-income people.
(g) While most cities plan and meet their RHNA requirement to zone for affordable housing, the
market decides when they are built. When they are built, critics wonder whether they truly accommodate low-income Californians and whether having an approved housing element actually made the difference.
(h) Since the RHNA process does not plan for the fluctuating population of foster youth in need of immediate and future housing, flexibility is needed to both plan and fulfill the state’s responsibility to find quality foster parents. Zoning for future housing that may never be built pales in comparison to the immediate and ongoing needs of foster care youth seeking quality family-based environments and permanency.
(i) In enacting this act, it is not the intent of the Legislature that cities avoid zoning for future populations. The purpose of this act is to give cities experiencing difficulty another tool to meet their RHNA requirement and involve them in the task of identifying
family-based environments for foster youth.