BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 23
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
SB 23
(Mitchell) - As Introduced December 1, 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Human Services |Vote:|5 - 2 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY: This bill repeals the maximum family grant (MFG) or
"family cap" rule under the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program. Specifically, this
bill:
SB 23
Page 2
1)Repeals the MFG rule and expressly 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)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.
c) Use contraception, choose a particular method of
contraception, or divulge the method of contraception that
any member of the assistance unit uses.
1)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 the repeal of the MFG.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Increase in CalWORKs grant costs in the range of $188 million
to $220 million (GF) annually based on data from county
consortia indicating 13.3 percent of all children in CalWORKs
households (134,900 children) are currently impacted by the
MFG rule.
2)Potential future additional CalWORKs grant costs of $3.5
million to $4.1 million (GF) 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.
3)Potential reduction in CalFresh benefits (Federal Funds) for a
SB 23
Page 3
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 percent of families that are impacted,
CalFresh benefits could decline by up to $5.6 million to $6.6
million annually.
4)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 (GF) per year.
5)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.
6)One-time costs (GF), likely significant, for automation
changes necessary to implement eligibility changes.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, in 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."
This bill seeks to repeal the MFG rule not only because it has
been proven ineffective, but also because of the adverse
effects it has on families in poverty and the dignity of women
in general.
SB 23
Page 4
2)Background. Existing law establishes guidelines for
determining a family's maximum aid payment under the CalWORKs
program, including all eligible family members, as well as the
level of aid to be paid. Existing law, under the maximum
family grant (MFG) rule, prohibits, with some exceptions, an
increase in CalWORKs aid based on an increase in the number of
needy persons in a family due to the birth of a child, if the
family has received aid continuously for the 10 months prior
to the birth of the child.
The current MFG rule, which denies aid ($128 per month on
average) was adopted as part of the 1994-95 state budget
agreement after it was rejected by the voters in 1992. It has
not been amended since its original enactment. The original
legislation was based on the belief that increasing welfare
grants for children born into AFDC families may provide an
incentive for families to have additional children to increase
their monthly grant. By limiting the grant amount, policy
makers believed families would be dissuaded from having
additional children and therefore reduce the amount of
"intergenerational" poverty. More recent studies have since
debunked the belief that increasing welfare grants encourages
parents to have additional children.
Beginning in the early 1990s, 24 states implemented family cap
rules. Today, just 16 states still have family cap rules in
place, including California. In 2002 and 2003, Maryland and
Illinois repealed their policies and were followed by Wyoming,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, Maryland, and Minnesota. This is
the fourth attempt to repeal the MFG rule in California since
2007.
3)Arguments in Support. This bill has a wide range of
supporters. The arguments for repealing the MFG rule range
from documenting the misguided notion that denying aid
dissuades families from having children, to exposing the
effects of poverty and deep poverty on children, to outrage
SB 23
Page 5
regarding the personal indignity experienced by women
confronted with an antiquated rule that requires them to
expose extremely personal, and sometimes traumatic,
information based on stereotypical and discriminatory thinking
regarding women on aid.
While the near-term costs of eliminating the MFG rule are
significant, more broadly, the long-term effects of its repeal
are unknown but could significantly reduce the costs of the
projected lifetime physical, mental, and social impacts
related to children raised in poverty and the long-term
economic and societal effects linked to this policy.
4)Prior Legislation.
a) SB 899 (Mitchell) 2014, was nearly identical to this
bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations committee.
b) AB 271 (Mitchell) 2013, was substantially similar to
this bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations
committee.
c) 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). It died in the Assembly Human
Services Committee.
d) AB 22 (Lieber) 2007, was substantially similar to this
bill. It was held in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
e) 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.
SB 23
Page 6
Analysis Prepared by:Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916)
319-2081