BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 271
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 2, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 271 (Mitchell) - As Introduced: February 7, 2013
SUBJECT : CalWORKs: eligibility
SUMMARY : Repeals the maximum family grant (MFG) or "family cap"
rule under the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to
Kids (CalWORKs) program.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits requiring an applicant or recipient of CalWORKs aid
to do any of the following as a condition of eligibility:
a) Divulge information regarding the status of any member
of the assistance unit being a victim of rape or incest;
b) Provide confidential medical records pertaining to any
member of the assistance unit being a victim of rape or
incest; or
c) Use contraception, use a particular method of
contraception, or disclose information about the particular
method of contraception used by any member of the
assistance unit.
1)Establishes that an applicant or recipient of CalWORKs aid
shall not be denied aid, nor denied an increase in the maximum
aid payment, as a result of the birth of a child.
EXISTING LAW
1)Establishes under federal law the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program to provide welfare-to-work
services to eligible families and, in California, provides
that TANF funds for welfare-to-work services are administered
through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to
Kids (CalWORKs) program.
2)Establishes the maximum monthly amount of cash aid (maximum
aid payment) that can be provided to a family eligible for aid
under the CalWORKs program.
AB 271
Page 2
3)Increases a family's maximum aid payment if a child is born
into the family within 10 months of the initial receipt of
aid.
4)Excludes a child from receiving aid if the child's family has
continuously received aid for the 10 months preceding the
child's birth, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
AB 271
Page 3
BACKGROUND
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
(CalWORKs) program provides monthly income assistance and
employment-related services aimed at moving children out of
poverty and helping families meet basic needs. Federal funding
for CalWORKs comes from the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant. The average monthly cash grant for
a family of three on CalWORKs (one parent and two children) is
$467.
According to data from the California Department of Social
Services, as of December 2012, 562,053 families relied on
CalWORKs, including over one million children. Nearly half of
the children are under age six.
History of the maximum family grant rule
In the early 1990's, ongoing controversy regarding the existence
and nature of "intergenerational welfare" and whether the
availability of public assistance benefits motivated family
formation patterns became the backdrop for the first statewide
family cap policy, which was implemented in New Jersey in 1992.
Under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program, states needed waivers to implement family cap policies,
which required states to conduct rigorous evaluations of their
policies and identify whether the policies achieved their
intended goals. In 1992, Governor Wilson put Proposition 165 on
the ballot, which was a welfare reform and budget powers
initiative that included family cap provisions. After the
ballot initiative was rejected by voters (54%-46%),
implementation of a family cap policy in the state was delayed
until AB 473 (Brulte), Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994 created
California's maximum family grant (MFG) rule. Upon passage,
California was still required to obtain a federal waiver to be
able to implement the new MFG rule, as the rule was inconsistent
with AFDC regulations. California's waiver application was
heavily contested.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which was the final piece of federal
welfare reform legislation, repealed the AFDC program and
created the block-granted Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program. The new approach emphasized
integrating parents into the workforce and granted states
flexibility in implementing their respective programs. Because
AB 271
Page 4
PRWORA eliminated the waiver requirement for family cap
policies, California proceeded with its MFG rule established
under AB 473 (Brulte) without a waiver. The legislation was
based on the belief that increasing welfare grants for children
born into AFDC families may incentivize families to have
additional children for the explicit purpose of increasing their
monthly grant. By limiting the grant amount, policymakers
believed families would be dissuaded from having additional
children. Elimination of the waiver requirement for a family
cap policy under PRWORA allowed California to abandon any
efforts to prove the new rule's effectiveness. California's MFG
policy has not been amended since its original enactment.
How the MFG rule works
The current MFG rule prohibits CalWORKs aid payments, with
certain exceptions, for a child that is born into a family that
has been receiving aid for 10 or more continuous months. In
practical terms for the family, the grant payment that was
previously intended for only those members who are aided is
spread more thinly and used to also support the newborn child in
the family who isn't aided.
If a family receives aid for the 10 continuous months preceding
the birth of a child, that child is excluded and does not
receive an aid payment. However, if the family is off aid for
two or more months during the 10 month period preceding the
birth of the child, the 10 months are not considered to be
continuous, and the child does receive an aid payment.
Additionally, the MFG rule does not apply if a family returns to
aid after a break of two or more years during which the family
did not receive any aid, provided that the family still meets
eligibility requirements and aided children are still under 18
years old.
Exceptions to the MFG rule
Current statute allows aid payments for a child who would
otherwise be excluded from receiving aid due to the MFG rule if
the child is conceived due to incest or rape and the incident
has been reported to a law enforcement agency, a medical or
mental health professional or social services prior to, or
within three months after, the birth of the child. This aspect
of the policy requires mothers-already in a vulnerable state and
in need of assistance to maintain their family's safety and
well-being-to report their victimization, perhaps much sooner
than they're ready to come forward. Additionally, it does not
AB 271
Page 5
take into consideration the possibility that a mother could be
putting herself and her children in danger if her attacker seeks
retribution after she makes such a report.
Statute also allows aid payments for a child who would otherwise
be excluded due to the MFG rule if the child is conceived due to
the failure of one of three contraception methods specified in
statute; an intrauterine device, Norplant, or sterilization of
either parent. Not only does this aspect of the policy involve
government in the personal sexual health matters of recipients,
it also does not take into account any other validated methods
of contraception or any of the personal safety and health
reasons for which a parent may choose to not use any of the
three specified methods or any other method of contraception
(e.g., age, spiritual or religious beliefs, or health status).
Additionally, the reference to one of the acceptable methods
specified in statute, Norplant, is outdated, as the product has
been discontinued for use in the United States.
Child support interactions
Federal and state laws impose requirements on families in
welfare programs in order to increase child support collections
on behalf of families applying for or receiving CalWORKs.
Unless the applicant or recipient has good cause (e.g., fear of
retaliation from an abuser), he or she is required to cooperate
with the local child support agency to collect child support
payments from absent parents as a condition of eligibility for
CalWORKs. Child support payments collected from non-custodial
parents of children in a CalWORKs family are retained by the
state to offset the cost of providing aid, with the exception of
the first $50 collected each month, which is passed on to the
CalWORKs family.
State law pertaining to the MFG rule provides that child support
collected on behalf of an excluded child must be paid entirely
to the family rather than to the state or county as
reimbursement for public assistance, and the child support
payment is not considered income for purposes of public benefit
calculations. While this policy may be considered advantageous
for families with children who would otherwise not receive any
aid, the policy still results in a shortfall for many families.
Cases in which the non-custodial parent can't be located or
can't afford to pay child support, or when the aided parent
doesn't have a waiver and would experience undue emotional
hardship due to having to maintain a connection with an abusive
AB 271
Page 6
or otherwise unstable non-custodial parent, there is no benefit
for the child excluded under the MFG rule.
Family cap policies in other states
There are currently twenty-two other states with family cap
policies in effect for their TANF programs, eighteen of which
implement a full child exclusion from aid similar to California.
Two of the remaining states have a partial exclusion and
increase the family's aid payment by a reduced amount, and the
other two states provide a standard grant amount to all
families, regardless of family size.
Need for the bill
Average grants of $467 per month for a family of three means
$15.56 per day, per family, or $5.18 per family member, per day
to meet basic needs, including rent, clothing, utility bills,
food, and anything else a family needs to ensure children can be
cared for at home and remain safely with their families. This
grant amount puts the annual household income at $5,604 per
year. Federal Poverty Guidelines show that 100% of poverty for
2013 is nearly three and a half times that at $19,530 per year.
If a mother can only receive CalWORKs aid for herself and two of
her children, but has another child that is excluded from aid
due to the MFG rule, that $15.56 per family per day is spread
even more thinly and becomes $3.89 per family member, per day.
In most cases, the additional amount of aid that would be paid
for a child who would otherwise be excluded from aid due to the
MFG rule would be $122 per month ($4.06 per day). This is a
nominal amount that will likely not cover all of a child's
needs, but without this additional grant amount, families are at
risk of slipping even deeper into poverty.
A 2011 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
concluded that grant levels under TANF programs fall short of
families' housing needs, according to US Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) data, even when the whole family is
aided:
"The first purpose of TANF is to provide assistance to needy
families so that children may be cared for in their homes or
those of relatives, but the cash assistance benefits do not
provide sufficient income to fulfill this goal. There is not a
single state in the nation in which the TANF benefit level for a
family of three with no other income is at least equal to the
Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment. The Fair Market
AB 271
Page 7
Rent is HUD's estimate of the amount needed to cover the rent
and utility costs of a modest housing unit in a given local
area. In fact, in a majority of states, TANF benefits amount to
less than half of the Fair Market Rent."
Additionally, a 2012 report from the California Budget Project
revealed that CalWORKs grants are only $5 more in actual dollars
than they were in 1987, and the purchasing power of today's
grants is less than half what it was in 1987-88, when adjusted
for inflation.
Author's Statement:
"Most welfare recipients live in dire poverty. The
CalWORKs program provides temporary cash assistance,
education, training, and employment programs to families
who are unable to meet basic needs like shelter, food, and
clothing on their own. Even with the aid that this program
provides, families frequently cannot afford to obtain the
basic necessities of life. The Maximum Family Grant (MFG)
policy implemented in CalWORKs further reduces available
aid to needy families by prohibiting children born to these
families from receiving additional aid to cover their basic
needs, like diapers and wipes.
This policy exacerbates poverty by controlling impoverished
parents' choices about the sizes of their families and
dictating when to conceive through the threat of further
economic hardship. By reducing the already meager benefits
families receive to spend on basic necessities, family caps
exacerbate the many mental and physical health problems
that children in poverty are already at increased risk of
developing. AB 271 protects newborns' health and safety
while prohibiting the state from inserting itself into the
private reproductive and medical decisions of families just
because they are poor."
Arguments in support:
According to the California Partnership:
"The MFG policy is intended to control impoverished
parents' choices about the size of their families and when
to conceive through the threat of economic hardship. The
MFG rule has not led to changes in birthrates among poor
AB 271
Page 8
women but has resulted in women being forced to make
desperate decisions that endanger the health and safety of
themselves and their children."
The California Catholic Conference states:
"The amount that most households would receive in
additional benefits for the newborn is hardly enough to pay
for the child's basic needs and without it, these children
face increased risks associated with extreme poverty and
potentially the hardships of homelessness. Perhaps the
most harmful impact of the MFG rule is its impact on very
poor families with children. California is one of a
minority of states that had an increase in childhood
poverty of over five percent in 2010 and 2011. This rule
contributes not only to the number of children living in
poverty, but also to the depth of their poverty."
COMMENTS :
1)Clarity needed regarding the affected CalWORKs recipients:
This bill repeals current statute pertaining to California's
maximum family grant (MFG) policy and adds a new section that
addresses CalWORKs recipients' reproductive and privacy
rights, as well as a provision that prohibits denying aid to a
child in the program. However, the bill does not specify
whether the elimination of the MFG policy applies
retroactively for children who are currently not aided due to
the cap, and if so, whether that retroactive application would
allow back pay of aid, or if those children would simply be
included and aided moving forward from the date of enactment.
The author may want to clarify the intent of the bill moving
forward.
2)Suggested amendment
The bill adds WIC Section 11270.5(b), which reads:
(b) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter
shall not be denied aid, nor denied an increase in the
maximum aid payment, as a result of the birth of a child.
While this language clearly addresses the provision of aid to
any child born into a family receiving CalWORKs on or after
the effective date of this bill, the inclusion of "birth of a
AB 271
Page 9
child" may not adequately capture the goal of the legislation.
If the author's intent is to provide aid to any child whose
family is currently participating in the CalWORKs program but
is excluded from aid exclusively due to the MFG rule, in
addition to any child born into a family receiving CalWORKs on
or after the effective date of this legislation, the committee
proposes the following amendment:
(b) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter
shall not be denied aid, nor denied an increase in the
maximum aid payment, as a result of the birth of a child.
(b) A child shall not be denied aid based on the date or
conditions of his or her conception or birth, under this
chapter.
PRIOR LEGISLATION
AB 833 (Yamada) 2011 would have eliminated the family cap
exclusion, as of January 1, 2012, for any child with a
disability under the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Died in Assembly Human Services
Committee.
AB 22 (Lieber) 2007 would have eliminated the family cap
exclusion of children born into CalWORKs families by phasing out
the policy, beginning with any child born on or after January 1,
2008 and would have completely repealed the family cap by
January 1, 2011. Died in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Western Center on Law and Poverty - Sponsor
ACCESS Women's Health Justice
Alameda County Community Food Bank
American Civil Liberties Union of California (ACLU)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME)
Asian Law Alliance
Asian Pacific American Legal Center
Bay Area Legal Aid
Black Women for Wellness
Burma Refugee Family Network (BRFN)
California Association of Food Banks
AB 271
Page 10
California Black Health Network
California Catholic Conference, Inc.
California Church IMPACT
California Communities United Institute (CalComUI.)
California Family Health Council (CFHC)
California Hunger Action Coalition
California Immigrant Policy Center (CIPC)
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Nurses Association
California Partnership
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (the
Partnership)
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF)
California WIC Association
California Women's Law Center (CWLC)
Catholic Charities of California United
Center on Reproductive Rights & Justice at UC Berkeley School of
Law (CRRJ)
Children's Defense Fund-California
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc.
County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA)
East Bay Community Law Center
Forward Together
Having Our Say
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Insight Center for Community Economic Development
Laborers' International Union of North America, Locals 777 and
792
Legal Aid Society of San Mateo
Legal Services of Northern California
Low-Income Familie4s' Empowerment through Education (LIFETIME)
Mid-City Community Advocacy Network (Mid-City CAN)
Lutheran Office of Public Polity - CA
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence
Parent Voices
Planned Parenthoood Affiliates of California (PPAC)
Public Interest Law Project ("PILP")
Sacramento Housing Alliance
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
St. John's Well Child & Family Center (SJWCFC0
Street Level Health Project
Vision Y Compromiso
Western Regional Advocacy Project
AB 271
Page 11
Women's Health Specialists
Youth Justice Coalition
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Myesha Jackson / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089