BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 271
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 271 (Mitchell)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Majority vote
HUMAN SERVICES 5-1 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Stone, Ammiano, Ian |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Calderon, Garcia, Chesbro | |Bradford, |
| | | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| | | |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, |
| | | |Ammiano, Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Grove |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow, |
| | | |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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, if a child is born into the applicant or
recipient's family during a period in which the applicant or
recipient's family is receiving aid.
AB 271
Page 2
2)Provides that no retroactive aid payments shall be made to any
applicant or recipient of aid as a result of the repeal of the
maximum family grant rule.
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 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.
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 : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Between $75 million and $200 million (TANF/ Maintenance of
Effort [MOE]) per year, assuming there are between 50,000 and
150,000 children on the CalWORKs caseload who would become
eligible for future aid payments.
2)Between $7 million and $15 million (TANF/MOE) in the first
year, as a result of providing aid to the 5,000 to 10,000
children who are born into CalWORKs recipient families each
year that are ineligible for aid under current law. This
amount doubles in the second year and continues to grow.
COMMENTS : The 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 TANF block grant.
The average monthly cash grant for a family of three on CalWORKs
AB 271
Page 3
(one parent and two children) is $464. According to data from
the California Department of Social Services, as of February
2013, 562,570 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 1990s,
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 TANF program. The new approach
emphasized integrating parents into the workforce and granted
states flexibility in implementing their respective programs.
Because 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
AB 271
Page 4
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 are ready to come
forward. Additionally, it does not 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
AB 271
Page 5
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 cannot be located or
cannot afford to pay child support, or when the aided parent
does not have a waiver and would experience undue emotional
hardship due to having to maintain a connection with an abusive
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 22
other states with family cap policies in effect for their TANF
programs, 18 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.
AB 271
Page 6
Need for the bill : Average grants of $464 per month for a
family of three means $15.46 per day, per family, or $5.15 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 $5,568 per year. Federal Poverty Guidelines
show that 100% of poverty for 2013 is 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 $15.46 per
family per day is spread even more thinly and becomes $3.86 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.
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."
AB 271
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Myesha Jackson / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089
FN: 0000992