BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Leland Y. Yee, Chair
BILL NO: AB 271
A
AUTHOR: Mitchell
B
VERSION: May 24, 2013
HEARING DATE: June 25, 2013
2
FISCAL: Yes
7
1
CONSULTANT: Mareva Brown
SUBJECT
CalWORKs: eligibility
SUMMARY
This bill would expressly prohibit the denial of aid or
denial of an increase in the maximum aid payment for a
child who was born into the family of a California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs)
recipient, and would limit any increased payment to months
after January 1, 2014. It also would prohibit the
Department of Social Services (DSS) from conditioning
eligibility for aid on an applicant's or recipient's
disclosure of information about being a victim of rape,
incest, or contraception failure, as specified.
ABSTRACT
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program in federal law, which permits
each state to implement the program under its own
state plan. (42 USC � 601 et seq.)
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageB
2) Establishes in state law the CalWORKs program to
provide cash assistance and other social services for
low-income families through the TANF program. Under
CalWORKs, each county provides assistance through a
combination of state, county and federal TANF funds.
(WIC 10530)
3) Establishes guidelines for determining a family's
maximum aid payment, including all eligible family
members, as well as the level of aid to be paid, as
specified. (WIC 11450)
4) Prohibits an increase in aid based on an increase
in the number of needy persons in a family due to the
birth of an additional child, if the family has
received aid continuously for the 10 months prior to
the birth of the child, as specified. (WIC 11450.04
(a))
5) Exempts this prohibition in the following
circumstances:
a. Any child who was conceived as a result
of an act of rape, as defined in Sections 261 and
262 of the Penal Code, if the rape was reported
to a law enforcement agency, medical or mental
health professional or social services agency
prior to, or within three months after, the birth
of the child.
b. Any child who was conceived as a result
of an incestuous relationship if the relationship
was reported to a medical or mental health
professional or a law enforcement agency or
social services agency prior to, or within three
months after, the birth of the child, or if
paternity has been established.
c. Any child who was conceived as a result
of contraceptive failure if the parent was using
an intrauterine device, a Norplant, or the
sterilization of either parent.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageC
d. If the family does not receive aid for
two consecutive months during the 10-months prior
to the child's birth.
e. Children born on or before November 1,
1995.
f. Any child who would qualify for the
maximum family grant cap if the family did not
receive aid for 24 consecutive months while the
child was living with the family.
g. Any child conceived when either parent
was a non-needy caretaker relative.
h. Any child who is no longer living in the
same home with either parent. (WIC 11450.04 (b)
et seq.)
6) Requires that 100 percent of any child support
payment received for a child who is born under the
maximum family grant (MFG) cap - and therefore is not
the recipient of aid - be paid to the family.
Additionally, prohibits any such child support payment
from being counted as income for the purpose of
calculating CalWORKs benefits. (WIC 11450.04 (e))
7) Requires each county welfare department (CWD) to
notify recipients of the MFG provisions in writing at
the time of application and recertification, as
specified. (WIC 11450.04 (f))
8) Requires the DSS to seek appropriate federal
waivers to implement the maximum family aid limit and
associated conditions, as specified, and directs DSS
to implement the rule on the date the waiver is
received by declaration of the department's director.
(WIC 11450.04 (g))
This bill:
1) Repeals WIC section 11450.04 which establishes and
defines the maximum family grant rule, including
exclusions for families in which a mother reports she
is a victim of rape or incest or in instances where
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageD
specified methods of contraception fail, among other
provisions (noted above).
2) Makes legislative findings and declarations that
legislation is necessary to protect the reproductive
and privacy rights of all applicants for, and
recipients of, aid under the CalWORKs program.
3) Prohibits an applicant for, or recipient of,
CalWORKs aid from being required as a condition of
eligibility to do any of the following:
a. Divulge any member of the assistance
unit's status as a victim of rape or incest.
b. Share confidential medical records
related to any member of the assistance unit's
rape or incest.
c. Use contraception, choose a particular
method of contraception, or divulge the method of
contraception that any member of the assistance
unit uses.
4) Prohibits an applicant for or recipient of CalWORKs
benefits from being denied aid, or denied an increase
in the maximum aid payment, for a child born into the
family during a period in which the family is
receiving aid.
5) Specifies that no increased benefit will be paid
for any month prior to January 1, 2014, as a result of
repealing the prior statute.
FISCAL IMPACT
An Assembly Appropriations analysis concluded that it would
cost between $80 million and $224 million to provide
benefits to an additional 50,000 to 150,000 children of
families who currently are on aid and who would become
eligible if the Maximum Family Grant (MFG) rule was
repealed. An additional $7 million to $15 million would be
needed to pay for 5,000 to 10,000 children who would be
born into CalWORKs families annually.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageE
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
The author states that a result of the MFG policy, women
are forced to make decisions about the types of birth
control they can use if they are receiving public benefits.
Women who are raped are required to report that sensitive
and highly personal information to their welfare caseworker
if they need to receive additional aid. According to the
author, some families chose to refuse assistance for the
last three months of the pregnancy rather than lose the
ability to include a grant for the new baby - which is less
than $200 a month.
"This kind of desperation is unconscionable to force upon
poor women, especially considering the fact that the
maximum grant is only approximately $608 for a family of
three - just enough to put a family at about 38 percent of
the federal poverty line," the author further states.
CalWORKs
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
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.
According to data from DSS, as of December 2012, 562,053
families relied on CalWORKs, including more than one
million children. Nearly half of the children are under age
six. About 6 percent of families receiving CalWORKs
benefits in California are subject to the MFG rule, which
prohibits a county from including in a family's aid any
benefit for a child born more than 10 months after a family
entered the CalWORKs program.
Maximum Family Grant rule
In 1992, against the backdrop of a debate about whether
"intergenerational welfare" was encouraging women to avoid
work and have additional children, New Jersey passed the
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageF
nation's first statewide family cap policy. The policy
prohibited additional benefits from being provided to a
family for children born after the family began receiving
welfare benefits. The policy, which was soon copied by
other states, came amid a national conversation that would
become the basis for the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which
established a time-limit on benefits and emphasized
integrating parents into the workforce as part of the
program.
Prior to the passage of PRWORA, states needed waivers to
implement family cap policies, which required rigorous
evaluations of whether the policies achieved their intended
goals. AB 473 (Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994)
created California's maximum family grant (MFG) rule as
part of budget trailer bill, and required California to
obtain a federal waiver to be able to implement the new MFG
rule, as the rule was inconsistent with existing federal
regulations. California's waiver application was approved
in August of 1996, however waiver approval coincided with
the passage of PRWORA, which granted states flexibility to
implement their own policies without need for a waiver, and
California proceeded with the MFG policy without
implementing the waiver. California's MFG policy has not
been amended since its original enactment.
The MFG 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 argued that
families would be dissuaded from having additional
children. In a heated floor debate in July 1994, in which
the bill's author argued that the MFG would "encourage the
transition to self-sufficiency," then-Assemblyman John
Burton questioned whether this move would achieve the
intended goal. "Welfare reform is getting people off of
welfare and into a productive role in society with a job,
not starving some kid who happens to be born into a family
that is on AFDC," Burton argued.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageG
How the MFG rule works
California's 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, or for longer than the gestational period of the
new baby.
If the family is not receiving aid for two or more months
during the 10-month period preceding the birth of the
child, the new child becomes eligible for aid in the
CalWORKs benefit calculation. 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
The statute permits exclusions for incidents in which a
child was born as a result of rape or incest, as long as
the mother of the child can document that they reported the
crime to law enforcement or a mental health professional or
social services agency. The report must have been made
prior to the child's birth or within three months after the
child was born. Similarly, state law permits an exclusion
to the rule if the child is born as a result of the failure
of three types of contraceptives specified in statute:
An intrauterine device,
Norplant (which was discontinued for use in the
United States in 2002 amid questions about its
effectiveness and lawsuits over its side-effects),
Sterilization of either parent.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageH
Other states
Eighteen states currently have "full" family cap rules,
which, like California, prohibit additional benefits for
additional children born after the family began receiving
aid. Three additional states - Illinois, Maryland and
Minnesota have since repealed their caps. Minnesota's cap
was repealed this year, and both Illinois and Maryland
repealed their family cap statutes in 2004.
Effect on fertility rates
A number of research studies on the effects of the family
cap across the country have concluded that while the cap
may have the effect of reducing benefits paid by the
states, they have had little to no effect on fertility
rates.<1>
The U.S. General Accounting Office noted in its examination
of the issue that most states implemented family caps as
part of their welfare reforms designed to reduce
out-of-wedlock births and to encourage self-sufficiency. Of
23 states with family caps at the time of the study, the
GAO estimated families were generally receiving about 20
percent less in cash assistance each month - from $20 less
in Wyoming to $121 less in California.<2>
Related legislation
-------------------------
<1> Dyer, Wendy and Robert W. Fairlie, "Do Family Caps
Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births?" Economic Growth Center, Yale
University, December 2003.
<2> U.S. General Accounting Office, "More Research Needed
on TANF Family Caps and Other Policies for Reducing
Out-of-Wedlock Births," September 2001, p 2-3.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 271 (Mitchell)
PageI
AB 22 (Lieber, 2007) was substantially similar to this
bill. It was held in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
AB 473 (Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994) created
California's maximum family grant (MFG) rule and required
California to obtain a federal waiver to implement it.
PRIOR VOTES
Assembly Floor 53 - 25
Assembly Appropriations 12 - 5
Assembly Human Services 5 - 1
POSITIONS
Support: Western Center on Law & Poverty (sponsor)
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference
California Legislative Women's Caucus
County Welfare Directors Association
East Bay Community Law Center
National Association of Social Workers
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Oppose: None received
-- END --