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