BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 23
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
23 (Mitchell)
As Introduced December 1, 2014
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 27-6
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Human Services |5-2 |Chu, Calderon, Lopez, |Mayes, Maienschein |
| | |Mark Stone, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-0 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Nazarian, | |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Holden, | |
| | |Jones, Quirk, Rendon, | |
| | |Wagner, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
SB 23
Page 2
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.
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 Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 11450.04,
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.
SB 23
Page 3
5)Declares a number of legislative findings pertaining to the
impact of the MFG rule on families, including that the MFG
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
United States Code Section 601 et seq., WIC Section 11200 et
seq.)
2)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 Sections
11320.3 and 11322.6)
3)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 Section 11322.8)
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 Section 11450.04(a))
SB 23
Page 4
5)Exempts the following individuals and circumstances from this
prohibition:
a) Any child who was conceived as a result of an act of
rape, as defined in Penal Code Sections 261 and 262, 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;
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
SB 23
Page 5
h) Any child who is no longer living in the same home with
either parent. (WIC Section 11450.04(b))
1)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 Section
11450.04(g))
2)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 Section 11454 and 11322.85)
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee this bill will have the following fiscal impact:
1) Increase in CalWORKs grant costs in the range of $188
million to $220 million (General Fund (GF)) 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.
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 percentage of families due to the increase in CalWORKs
SB 23
Page 6
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.
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:
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% to 46%), implementation of a family cap policy in
the state was delayed until AB 473 (Brulte), Chapter 196,
Statutes of 1994 created California's MFG rule. Upon passage,
SB 23
Page 7
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 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
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.
SB 23
Page 8
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
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.
SB 23
Page 9
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
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
SB 23
Page 10
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.
Need for this bill: 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."
Analysis Prepared by:
Myesha Jackson / HUM. S. / (916) 319-2089 FN: 0001605