Child welfare services: prevention services: Indian tribes.

Rogers, together with principal coauthors Hadwick and Pérez, advances a framework that formalizes California Indian tribes’ role in child welfare by enabling agreements between the Department of Social Services and tribal entities to oversee the care and custody of Indian children and to determine Indian child custody jurisdiction, with the option to include prevention services under the Family First Prevention Services Act framework. The measure contemplates that such agreements may address orderly adjudication and transfer of jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction, or even arrangements that prevent entry into foster care, and it provides that there shall be no tribal share of costs, with nonfederal costs borne by the state and, if jurisdiction shifts to a county, those nonfederal costs borne by the county. It also expressly envisions prevention-focused arrangements and the administration of all or part of Title IV-E programs within these agreements, subject to applicable standards and funding.

Under the amendment, the department is to enter into agreements upon a tribe’s request, in coordination with existing statutes, and any agreement regarding care, custody, or jurisdiction must require adherence to service delivery standards, foster care standards, and adoption service standards as specified in state law. The measure requires that tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia party to an agreement claim all eligible federal funding available under Title IV-E for the programs covered, and it obligates fiscal reporting for reimbursements of federal and state funds. It further provides that, subject to appropriation, funding may be allocated to support independent legal representation for the child and the child’s family members in foster care proceedings under the agreement, and it directs the department to develop a cost allocation plan by March 31, 2026, in consultation with participating tribes, to enable Title IV-E funds to support these representation costs. The measure also allows startup funding to assist in building a comprehensive tribal child welfare program, available for three years and contingent on annual Budget Act funding, with the possibility of extension for good cause, and it includes a liability provision clarifying that implementation of an agreement does not create state or county liability for acts of tribal officers.

The bill situates these tribal agreements within a broader policy and funding context by aligning state–tribal arrangements with federal law and Family First provisions, including IV-E funding rules, while maintaining established state standards for service delivery, foster care, and adoption. Oversight and coordination are anchored in fiscal and programmatic reporting requirements, with a deadline for a cost allocation plan and explicit dependencies on future appropriations for certain provisions, such as independent legal representation and startup funding. The changes also affect intergovernmental dynamics: counties would assume nonfederal costs when custody transfers occur, and tribes would gain access to funds and administrative flexibility to operate prevention services alongside traditional child welfare functions.