BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 23
Page A
Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES
Kansen Chu, Chair
SB
23 (Mitchell) - As Introduced December 1, 2014
SENATE VOTE: 27-6
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 that any member of the assistance unit is a
victim of rape or incest;
b) Share confidential medical records related to any member
of the assistance unit's rape or incest; or
c) Use contraception, choose a particular method of
contraception, or divulge the method of contraception that
any member of the assistance unit uses.
SB 23
Page B
1)Prohibits denial of aid or denial of an increase in the
maximum aid payment to a CalWORKs applicant or recipient due
to a child being born into the applicant's or recipient's
family while the family is receiving CalWORKs aid.
2)Repeals Section 11450.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
which establishes the MFG rule, including exclusions for
families in which a mother reports she is a victim of rape or
incest or in instances where specified methods of
contraception fail.
3)Specifies that any increased benefit payment resulting from
this bill will occur after January 1, 2016, and a CalWORKs
applicant or recipient will not be entitled to a retroactive
benefit payment increase as a result of repealing the prior
statute.
4)Prohibits an appropriation for the purposes of this act, as
specified.
5)Declares a number of legislative findings pertaining to the
impact of the MFG rule on families, including that the Maximum
Family Grant rule makes poor children poorer, reducing the
income of families with infants to below 30% of the federal
poverty level.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes under federal law the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program to provide aid and
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. (42
U.S.C. 601 et seq., WIC 11200 et seq.)
SB 23
Page C
2)Establishes income, asset and real property limits used to
determine eligibility for the program, including net income
below the Maximum Aid Payment (MAP), based on family size and
county of residence, which is around 40% of the Federal
Poverty Level. (WIC 11450, 11150 et seq.)
3)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))
4)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;
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;
SB 23
Page D
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; and
h) Any child who is no longer living in the same home with
either parent. (WIC 11450.04 (b))
16)Requires 100% of any child support payment received for a
child who is born under the maximum family grant (MFG) cap,
and therefore not aided as part of the assistance unit, to be
paid to the family. Additionally, prohibits any such child
support payment from being counted as income in calculating
CalWORKs benefits. (WIC 11450.04(e))
17)Requires each county welfare department to notify recipients
of the MFG provisions in writing at the time of application
and recertification, as specified. (WIC 11450.04(f))
18)Requires the state Department of Social Services (DSS) to
seek appropriate federal waivers to implement the MFG 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))
19)Establishes a 48-month lifetime limit of CalWORKs benefits
for eligible adults, including a CalWORKs welfare-to-work
24-month time clock, upon exhaustion of which a recipient must
meet federal work requirements in order to retain eligibility.
(WIC 11454, 11322.85)
20)Requires all individuals over 16 years of age, unless they
are otherwise exempt, to participate in welfare-to-work
activities as a condition of eligibility for CalWORKs. (WIC
11320.3, 11322.6)
SB 23
Page E
21)Establishes the number of weekly hours of welfare-to-work
participation necessary to remain eligible for aid, including
requirements for an unemployed parent in a two-parent
assistance unit, as specified. (WIC 11322.8)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the April 7, 2015 analysis of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill is expected to have
the following fiscal impact:
a)Major increase in CalWORKs grant costs in the range of $188
million to $220 million (General Fund) annually based on data
from county consortia indicating 13.3% of all children in
CalWORKs households (134,900 children) are currently impacted
by the MFG rule.
b)Potential future additional CalWORKs grant costs of $3.5
million to $4.1 million (General Fund) for every 2,500
children born into CalWORKs families each year who otherwise
would have been subject to the MFG rule, with annual costs
cumulatively increasing in subsequent years.
c)Potential reduction in CalFresh benefits (Federal Fund) for a
percentage of families due to the increase in CalWORKs grant
levels under the repeal of the MFG rule. While many families
may not experience a reduction due to their limited or lack of
income, for every 10% of families that are impacted, CalFresh
benefits could decline by up to $5.6 million to $6.6 million
annually.
d)Ongoing potential cost savings in averted administrative
hearings related to challenges to MFG determinations. At an
estimated cost of $1,025 per hearing, elimination of 250
hearings per year would result in cost savings of over
$250,000 (General Fund) per year.
e)Potential minor offset to CalWORKs grant cost increases due to
child support payments considered countable income in lieu of
being provided to the CalWORKs family under the MFG rule.
SB 23
Page F
f)One-time costs likely significant and in excess of $150,000
(General Fund) for automation changes necessary to implement
eligibility changes.
COMMENTS:
CalWORKs: 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 2015-16 monthly cash
grant for a family of three on CalWORKs (one parent and two
children) is $506.55, and the maximum monthly grant amount for a
family of three, if the family has no other income and lives in
a high-cost county, is $704. According to recent data from the
California Department of Social Services, over 540,000 families
rely on CalWORKs, including over one million children. Nearly
80% of the children are under age twelve and almost 40% are
under age five.
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
SB 23
Page G
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
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 is applied: 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
SB 23
Page H
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 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
SB 23
Page I
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
SB 23
Page J
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
or otherwise unstable non-custodial parent, there is no benefit
for the child excluded under the MFG rule. Because this bill
repeals all MFG-related provisions in statute, it deletes the
requirement that all child support be passed through for
children subject to the MFG rule, thereby aligning child support
pass-through practices for all children in the CalWORKs program.
Family cap policies in other states: There are currently only
15 other states with family cap policies in effect for their
TANF programs, eight of which implement a full child exclusion
from aid similar to California. Among the remaining seven
states, three have a partial exclusion and increase the family's
aid payment by a reduced amount, two more increase a parent's
earned income disregard rather than provide cash aid, and
another provides the family with a voucher for benefits instead
of cash aid. <1>
Need for this bill: While the average grant for a parent and
two children on CalWORKs is $506.55-provided the parent has
other income-the maximum monthly grant for that same family with
---------------------------
<1>
Huber, Erika, David Kassabian, and Elissa Cohen (2014). Welfare
Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2013, OPRE Report
2014-52, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and
Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US
Department of Health and Human Services.
SB 23
Page K
no other income is $704 in the state's 17 high-cost counties and
$670 in the 41 other counties. A monthly maximum grant amount
of $670 means $22.33 per day, per family, or $7.44 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 safely remain with their
families. This grant amount puts the annual household income at
$8,040 per year, or 40% of poverty. Federal Poverty Guidelines
for 2015 show that 100% of poverty for a family of three is
$20,090 per year.
In most cases, the additional amount of aid that a family would
receive to provide for a child that is currently excluded from
aid due to the MFG rule would be around $125 per month.
However, if a mother receives CalWORKs aid for herself and her
two children, but has another child that is excluded from aid
due to the MFG rule, that $22.33 per day from the monthly grant
amount of $670 is spread even more thinly and becomes $5.58 per
family member, 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 slipping even deeper into
poverty.
Data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC)
further demonstrate the shortcomings of the maximum monthly
CalWORKs grant amounts even before stretching aid to care for a
new baby born into a family receiving aid. According to NLIHC,
the average fair market rent for a studio apartment in
California is currently $915 per month. In Alameda County,
which is one of the state's high-cost counties for purposes of
calculating CalWORKs eligibility and determining aid payments,
the rent required for a studio jumps up to $1,039 per month.
Fair market rent for a studio apartment is $788 per month in San
Bernardino County, which is one of the state's 41 low-cost
counties in which the monthly maximum aid payment for a parent
and two children is $670.
SB 23
Page L
According to the author, explaining the need for this bill as it
pertains to the health of California's families, "As states have
realized the long term health consequences of denying services
to infants, there has been a movement to repeal MFG policies.
California must protect the health of children born into extreme
poverty and repeal this draconian and ineffective rule. The MFG
rule has not led to changes in birthrates among poor women but
has resulted in women being forced to make desperate decisions
that endanger the health and safety of themselves and their
children."
PRIOR LEGISLATION:
SB 899 (Mitchell) 2014, was identical to this bill. It died on
the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
AB 271 (Mitchell) 2013, also would have eliminated the family
cap and was amended to make all aid payments resulting from the
repeal of the rule prospective. It died on the Senate
Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
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 the 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 the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
AB 473 (Brulte) Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994, created
SB 23
Page M
California's maximum family grant (MFG) rule and required
California to obtain a federal waiver to implement it.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
ACCESS Women's Health Justice - co-sponsor
ACT for Women and Girls
Advancement Project
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alameda County Community Food Bank
Alameda County Social Services Agency
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE)
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
(AFSCME), AFL-CIO
Asian Law Alliance
Bay Area Legal Aid
Binational Center for the Development of Oaxacan Indigenous
Communities
Black Women for Wellness
Business and Professional Women of Nevada County
California Association of Food Banks
California Black Health Network (CBHN)
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Family Health Council (CFHC)
California Family Resource Association
California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA)
California Hunger Coalition (CHAC)
California Immigrant Policy Center
SB 23
Page N
California Labor Federation
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) - co-sponsor
California Nurses Association
California Pan-Ethic Health Network (CPEHN)
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (the
Partnership)
California Partnership
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (CRLAF)
California WIC Association
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice, UC Berkeley
Central California Legal Services, Inc.
Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles
Child Care Law Center
Children Now
Children's Defense Fund-California (CDF-CA)
Citizens for Choice
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization
Consumer Attorneys of California
County Welfare Directors Association of CA (CWDA), co-sponsor
Courage Campaign
East Bay Community Law Center - co-sponsor
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equal Rights Advocates (ERA)
Family Violence Law Center (FVLC)
First 5 Monterey County
Food for People, Inc., Humboldt County
Forward Together
Friends Committee on Legislation of California (FCLCA)
Guam Communications Network
Having Our Say (HOS)
Hunger Action Los Angeles
SB 23
Page O
Hunger Advocacy Network
Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles (JFS)
Latino Coalition for a Healthy California
Law Foundation of Silicon Valley
League of Women Voters of CA
Legal Services of Northern California
LIUNA Locals 777 & 792
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors
Lutheran Office of Public Policy
Monterey County Board of Supervisors
National Association of Social Workers, CA Chapter (NASW-CA)
9to5, National Association of Working Women
National Council of Jewish Women
Contra Costa
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Sacramento
National Health Law Program (NHeLP)
National Lawyers Guild San Francisco San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter (NLGSF)
National Women's Law Center
National Women's Political Caucus of CA (NWPCCA)
Pacific Islander Cancer Survivors Network
Parent Voices
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Santa Barbara, Ventura and San
Luis Bispo Counties
Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project Los Angeles County
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC)
Planned Parenthood Community Action Fund Orange and San
Bernardino Counties
Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund
Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley
SB 23
Page P
Public Interest Law Project ("PILP")
River City Food Bank
Riverside All of Us or None
Rubicon Programs
Sacramento County Hunger Coalition
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Luis Obispo County
San Mateo County Board of Education
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Cruz County First District Supervisor
SEIU
Solano County Board of Supervisors
St. Anthony Foundation
Strong Hearted Native Women's Coalition, Inc.
Stronger California Advocates Network
The Feminist Agenda Network
Time for Change Foundation
United Ways of California
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Vision Compromiso
Voices for Progress
Western Center on Law and Poverty, co-sponsor
Western Regional Advocacy Project, (WRAP)
Women Lawyers of Sacramento
Women's Community Clinic
Women's Foundation of California
5 individuals
Opposition
SB 23
Page Q
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by:Myesha Jackson / HUM. S. / (916)
319-2089