AB 319 directs every California county to create and implement a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) tying together county child welfare, probation, behavioral health, education, and regional centers to ensure coordinated, timely, trauma-informed services for foster youth who have experienced severe trauma. The MOU must set roles, an interagency leadership team and placement committee, screening and service-planning processes, data-sharing agreements, staffing and training commitments, financing arrangements, and tribal consultation procedures.
At the state level the bill codifies a joint interagency resolution team to develop county guidance, provide technical assistance, review placement and service gaps, develop a multiyear capacity plan for trauma-informed care, and publish deidentified tracking data on intensive therapeutic options. Counties must submit a first local plan by January 1, 2027, update it every two years, and include steps to expand short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP) capacity locally.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires counties to negotiate and implement an interagency MOU covering placement, assessment, service planning, workforce training, data sharing, finance, dispute resolution, and tribal coordination for foster youth with severe trauma. Establishes a state-level joint interagency resolution team charged with guidance, technical assistance, gap analysis, and public reporting.
Who It Affects
County child welfare agencies, county probation departments, county behavioral health, county offices of education, regional centers, resource (foster) families, STRTPs, and tribal governments. State agencies must supply guidance and post deidentified data on the California Health and Human Services website.
Why It Matters
It converts ad hoc coordination into formal, legally described processes and timelines, creates a central technical-assistance function, and forces counties to plan for a trauma-informed continuum of care — including explicit attention to increasing local STRTP slots and care transitions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes county-level interagency MOUs the primary vehicle for coordinating trauma-informed services for foster youth who have experienced severe trauma. Each county MOU must be developed with participation from child welfare, probation, behavioral health, education, and regional center partners, with optional advisory input from foster-care advocacy groups.
The MOUs must cover practical mechanics — from how screening and entry-to-care happen to how agencies coordinate transportation and recruit and manage resource families capable of providing therapeutic foster care.
AB 319 requires MOUs to create both an interagency leadership team and an interagency placement committee (the latter defined by reference to existing law). Those teams are explicitly empowered to exchange confidential information among member agencies when relevant to identifying and removing barriers to services or placements, but the bill limits use of that information to those purposes and requires recipients to return or destroy records once the purpose is satisfied.
The MOUs must also spell out staff recruitment, training, coaching, finance and cost-sharing arrangements, and dispute-resolution processes; crucially, they must include processes developed through tribal consultation for involving federally recognized tribes in ongoing implementation.At the state level the Secretary of California Health and Human Services and the Superintendent of Public Instruction must stand up a joint interagency resolution team with representatives from DSS, DHCS, DDS, and the Department of Education. That team issues guidance to counties, offers interdepartmental technical assistance on request, conducts a review of placement and service options and gap analyses, crafts a multiyear plan to expand trauma-informed capacity (including for youth discharged from short-term residential therapeutic programs), and tracks deidentified data about children assisted into intensive therapeutic options to be posted and updated annually on the CHHS website.The bill requires counties to translate state guidance and the team’s recommendations into a local plan that shows how the county will provide coordinated trauma-informed services in the least restrictive, in-state settings.
Counties must submit their first plan by January 1, 2027, and update plans every two years. Plans must address how the county will increase available STRTP slots locally and how statewide recommendations apply to county-specific circumstances.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Each county must develop and implement a formal MOU that includes an interagency leadership team and an interagency placement committee and lists specific operational items (screening, placement, transportation, training, finance, dispute resolution).
The interagency leadership team must establish a process to provide at least six months of family-based aftercare to children and youth (as described in Section 4096.6) and acknowledge federal Medi‑Cal participation rules for medically necessary services.
Members of county teams and the state joint interagency resolution team may share information otherwise confidential under state law when reasonably relevant to removing service or placement barriers, but recipients must return or destroy records when the purpose is met and use the information only for the limited purposes allowed.
A state joint interagency resolution team (DSS, DHCS, DDS, Department of Education) must produce guidance, a multiyear capacity plan for trauma-informed care, a gap analysis for placements (including unplanned STRTP discharges), and offer interdepartmental technical assistance to counties.
Counties must submit the first trauma-informed service plan to the joint interagency resolution team by January 1, 2027, update it every two years, and include a local strategy to increase short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP) capacity.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
County memoranda of understanding and required participants
This section forces counties to put interagency coordination into a written MOU and names required participants: county child welfare, probation, behavioral health, county office of education, and regional center(s), with foster care advocacy groups included in an advisory role if appropriate. Practically, that converts informal cross‑agency relationships into a document that municipalities must implement and use as the baseline for service coordination and accountability.
Minimum MOU content (operations, workforce, and finance)
The MOU must address a detailed operations list: establishing leadership and placement bodies, integrated core practice, screening and assessment, child-and-family teaming, transportation coordination, resource-family recruitment and therapeutic foster care delivery, data-sharing agreements, staff training/coaching, cost management, and dispute resolution. For compliance officers this is a long checklist of items counties must operationalize and document, which will drive contractual, HR, and budgeting decisions at the county level.
Confidentiality guardrails and use limitations for team information-sharing
The bill permits team members to disclose records otherwise confidential under state law when they reasonably believe the information is relevant to removing barriers to services or placements, but it strictly limits use to that purpose and requires return or destruction of records when the purpose ends. It also requires that team discussions and exchanged materials remain confidential and not subject to public inspection unless aggregated and deidentified. These are operational rules: agencies must build processes to track disclosures, destroy records on schedule, and ensure meetings are held under appropriate confidentiality protections.
State joint interagency resolution team: duties and technical assistance
The Secretary of CHHS and the Superintendent of Public Instruction must create a joint team with representatives from four state agencies to draft county guidance, provide technical assistance on request, review statewide placement/service gaps, and develop a multiyear plan to increase trauma-informed capacity. The team must also create a process for counties to request interdepartmental help, making the state the central clearinghouse for specialized guidance and cross‑agency problem-solving.
Gap analysis, multiyear capacity plan, and public reporting
The state team must review available placement and service options and recommend solutions for gaps (with specific attention to youth with unplanned STRTP discharges, youth impacted by commercial sexual exploitation, acute behavioral needs, or developmental disabilities). It must develop a multiyear plan to expand trauma‑informed care capacity and track deidentified outcomes and technical-assistance results to be posted annually on the CHHS website. For counties this produces a statewide framework and data feed they will need to incorporate into local planning.
County plans and STRTP capacity requirement
Counties, working with interagency leadership teams and tribes, must submit a plan to the joint interagency resolution team showing how they will ensure coordinated, timely, trauma-informed services, and how statewide recommendations will apply locally. The first plan is due January 1, 2027, with updates every two years; counties must also outline how they'll increase local STRTP slots. This provision turns state guidance into a local deliverable and attaches a named deadline and regular update cadence.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Children and youth in foster care who have experienced severe trauma — they gain a mandated, county-level coordination structure intended to shorten gaps between assessment, placement, and therapeutic services and require aftercare support.
- Resource (foster) families and therapeutic foster parents — MOUs must address recruitment, training, and delivery of therapeutic foster care and include commitments for family-based aftercare, which could increase access to supports and coaching.
- Counties and local agencies — they receive state guidance, a technical-assistance pathway, and a standardized planning framework intended to reduce duplicative effort and clarify cross-agency roles when serving high-needs youth.
Who Bears the Cost
- County governments (child welfare, probation, behavioral health, education, regional centers) — must negotiate and implement MOUs, run leadership and placement teams, prepare biennial plans, expand STRTP slots locally, and comply with confidentiality and records-destruction requirements, creating administrative and fiscal burdens.
- State agencies staffing the joint interagency resolution team — DSS, DHCS, DDS, and Department of Education must allocate staff and resources to produce guidance, technical assistance, reviews, multiyear plans, and maintain the public data posting.
- Short-term residential therapeutic programs and trauma-service providers — may face demand surges and new contractual or reporting expectations as counties push to increase capacity and align services with the statewide continuum.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate goals that pull in opposite directions: prompt, cross-agency sharing of sensitive case information to improve placement and treatment for traumatized foster youth versus strict confidentiality and privacy protections for those same records — and it expects county and state agencies to coordinate an expanded continuum of care without specifying matching funding or detailed mechanisms to manage the legal and operational complexity of that coordination.
The bill walks a fine line between enabling necessary information flow and preserving the strong confidentiality protections that already exist for child welfare and behavioral health records. Allowing disclosure “to the extent permitted by federal law” and then requiring return or destruction of records creates practical compliance questions: which statutory bases (e.g., HIPAA, 42 C.F.R.
Part 2) apply in each case, who documents the legal basis for each disclosure, and how will agencies audit compliance?
Financial and operational capacity are other open questions. The bill mandates planning, expanded STRTP slots, and ongoing data collection but does not include dedicated new funding or clear state-to-county fiscal mechanisms.
Counties with constrained budgets or thin STRTP markets will need to identify funds and providers or reconfigure local systems — a process that could take years and vary widely in speed and quality across counties. Tribal consultation language requires engagement but does not specify dispute-resolution processes where tribal priorities differ from county plans.
Finally, public data posting of deidentified tracking information improves transparency but raises reidentification risks in small counties or when data describe highly specific subgroups. The bill requires deidentification but not a prescribed standard or independent privacy review; counties and the state will need operational policies and technical capacity to reduce reidentification risk while still producing useful system-level insights.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.