The Use of Evidence in Passing and Implementing California’s Fostering Connections to Success Act

1. The Use of Evidence in Passing and Implementing California’s Fostering Connections to Success Act Jennifer E. Mosley & Mark E. Courtney School of Social Service Administration University of Chicago February 1, 2012

2. Fostering Connections to Success • Federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act passed in 2008 • Allows federal funding for foster care services to be extended to youth ages 18‐21 • Extending care is optional for states • Most states have implemented minimally • California passed a new entitlement • Extremely generous bill in terms of reentry procedures and participation requirements.

3. Brief Legislative History • Idea of extending foster care was not new in California • Courts in some counties already using state only funds to keep youth in care past 18 • County run child welfare system—52 counties • Co-sponsor group included advocates, providers, unions, courts and county directors • Bill introduced December 2008, passed September 2010, in effect as of January 1, 2012

4. Why this Case Study? • Historic legislation • Learning opportunity for other states • Major changes for state policy, provider regulations, courts, and families • 58 counties provides a natural experiment • Legislation short on specifics • Multiple opportunities for evidence to play a role • Competing stakeholder interests • Different types of evidence needed at different levels • Knowing how evidence was used can help support future advocacy efforts

5. Areas of Inquiry • The role various stakeholders played in passing AB12 and adaption of their efforts during implementation • Who were the most influential advocates at each stage? • How was AB12 framed by stakeholders? • What types of evidence were used to influence policy? • What are the needs and perceptions of policymakers? • Whose advocacy was ultimately more effective in shaping policy? 2) What is the result of that process? • Looking at how jobs and placements are changing, how counties are coping, and how youth are perceiving the policy • Today, focused on first set of questions • Specifically, how was research evidence used at different stages in the policy process? What can that tell us about the use of evidence in policymaking generally?

6. Methods & Data • Data collection began September 2011 • Relying primarily on in-depth interviews with key stakeholders • Policymakers & legislative staff (N=10) • Advocates & funders (N=14) • Government administrators (N=10) • Interviews still in progress • In-person participant observation at stakeholder meetings • Notes from conference calls • Document review of legislative history, rules of the court, press releases, & communications from advocates

7. Evidence & The Legislative Process • Two studies mentioned specifically as “laying the groundwork” • Wide consensus that the policy made sense “on its face” • Presenting research evidence that it would work was less important than evidence that it was the right thing to do • Heavy reliance on persuasive arguments, appealing to legislators as parents, and “soft” evidence such as the sharing of personal stories • Engagement of former foster youth crucial

8. Budget Implications • Willing to vote for the policy on the basis of the policy, but ONLY if it could be shown to be budget neutral or potentially cost saving • Lots of disagreement among state agencies and advocates about projected costs • Evidence about cost effectiveness was able to be produced quickly due to established relationships between advocates, foundations, and researchers • Cost benefit analysis was the key piece of evidence in entire process

9. Evidence & The Implementation Process • Research evidence largely neglected during implementation, despite vague statute • Reasons included: • Time constraints • Advocates running the process • Lack of government capacity • Lack of research with required level of specificity • Overall, reduced government capacity combined with a strong advocates and interest groups led to decision making that was not based in evidence as much as it was based in • What was possible • What had the most support

10. Conclusion & Implications • For research evidence to be effective in shaping legislative decisions it needs to be more timely and better geared to policymakers concerns & state-level context • More evidence about cost-benefit is needed • Established connections between researchers, advocates and funders can help • The perceived need for research evidence is higher once the policy is already in place

11. Conclusion & Implications • These findings may also be applicable to other situations in which: • There is wide support for the policy on its face and/or a sympathetic target group • State budget constraints dominate the discussion • Reduced government capacity leaves advocates and interest groups to lead the policymaking effort at both the legislative and implementation phase