BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES Senator McGuire, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 659 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Bates | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------| |Version: |January 4, 2016 |Hearing |January 14, 2016 | | | |Date: | | |----------+-----------------------+-----------+-----------------| |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ---------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant|Taryn Smith | |: | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Opportunity Grant Pilot Project SUMMARY This bill would require the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, to design and implement a 5-year pilot project to provide grants to private organizations that assist individuals receiving CalWORKs benefits in achieving economic independence and to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs funded by the grants. ABSTRACT Existing law: 1) Establishes the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which permits states to implement the program under a state plan. (42 USC § 601 et seq.) 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 11200 et seq.) 3) Establishes under the CalWORKs program, a welfare-to-work program and requirement that adults participate in work or employment-related activities for SB 659 (Bates) PageB of? specified amounts of time. (WIC 11320 et seq.) 4) Requires counties to submit a plan annually detailing how it intends to deliver the full range of activities and services necessary to move CalWORKs recipients from welfare to work, including how it will collaborate with public and private agencies for training and support services, what partnerships it will form with the private sector, the range of welfare-to-work activities it will offer recipients, how it will provide substance abuse and mental health treatment services, how it will provide child care and transportation services, performance outcomes to track whether the county's program meets locally established objectives, and other items. (WIC 10531) 5) Requires CDSS to implement a CalWORKs county peer review process no later than July 1, 2014 to assist with implementing best practices and review each county's data, as specified. (WIC 10533) 6) Identifies allowable welfare-to-work activities including unsubsidized employment, on-the-job-training, work study, education, including education to complete high school proficiency or general educational certificate, other educational pursuits, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence services and other activities necessary to assist an individual in obtaining and retaining employment. (WIC 11322.6) 7) Limits an adult's participation in welfare-to-work activities and the associated cash benefits to 24 cumulative months during a recipients lifetime unless a recipient meets federally defined work participation requirements, and to 48 months of lifetime aid if an adult is meeting federal work requirements. (WIC 11322.85) 8) Creates a family stabilization program within the welfare-to-work program and defines eligibility as an identified situation or crisis that is destabilizing the family and would interfere with participation in welfare-to-work activities and services, as defined, and determined by the county. (WIC 11325.24 (b)) 9) Requires each county to implement a family stabilization SB 659 (Bates) PageC of? program, mandates that services include intensive case management and services designed to support the family in overcoming the crisis, clarifies that funds for the family stabilization program be in addition to any funds allocated to the client through the welfare-to-work program and permits funds in the family stabilization program to be used to provide housing and other needed services. (WIC 11325.24 (c) through(f)) 10) Establishes the CalWORKs housing support program and identifies a recipient as eligible for housing supports if the county determines that his or her family is experiencing homelessness or housing instability that would be a barrier to self-sufficiency or child well-being. (WIC 11330.5) This bill: 1) Makes a series of Legislative findings and declarations including: a. California is expected to spend $142 billion on health and human services programs this year, which is by far the largest state budget expenditure, while total education spending for kindergarten, grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and higher education programs is only $80 billion per year. b. California has the fifth largest Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash grant in the nation, and the second largest amongst the 10 largest states, yet poverty remains a persistent problem. 2) Requires CDSS, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, to implement a five-year pilot project under which monetary grants are provided to organizations operating programs that assist individuals receiving CalWORKs benefits to achieve economic independence. 3) Requires CDSS in developing the pilot project to, at a minimum, do all of the following: a. Develop a competitive review process for all grant proposals submitted and a methodology to SB 659 (Bates) PageD of? determine grant amounts. b. Develop eligibility requirements for organizations seeking a grant. The eligibility requirements shall, at a minimum, require each organization's program to include eleven specified eligibility requirements (See item No 7 below). The eligibility requirements for organizations seeking a grant do not affect an individual's eligibility for CalWORKs benefits, as determined by the county. c. Develop an ongoing evaluation, utilizing objective criteria, of the effectiveness of an organization receiving grant funding in teaching its program participants the skills necessary to achieve economic independence. 4) Appropriates $50 million from the state's General Fund to CDSS to fund the pilot program. 5) Establishes a number of criteria to be included in the ongoing evaluation including the number and percentage of partipcants that: a. complete the program, b. achieve a high school diploma or equivalent while in the program, c. achieve family reunification, when applicable, and d. are receiving CalWORKs benefits upon completion of the program. 6) Requires CDSS to develop a period progress report for the duration of the pilot project. 7) Permits CDSS to enter into an agreement with an academic institution or other entity with sufficient expertise for the purpose of creating, performing, or both creating and performing the evaluation, and requires CDSS and its evaluator to seek input from stakeholders during the development process. 8) Requires each program, in order to be eligible for the grant, to include the following 11 minimum requirements: a. Education focused on the attainment of a high SB 659 (Bates) PageE of? school diploma or its equivalent. b. Mental health services. c. Employment training. d. Financial training. e. Parenting skills training. f. Life skills training. g. Child care services. Each participating child care provider shall obtain a criminal record clearance pursuant to Section 1596.871 of the Health and Safety Code. If the organization serves only pregnant women, the organization shall not be required to provide child care services to be eligible for grant funding. h. A clean and sober environment. i. Comprehensive, targeted case management to assist program participants. j. Ongoing monitoring of program participants for at least five years after they have completed the program for purposes of measuring long term program effectiveness. aa. Trauma-informed social work. 9) Permits an organization receiving a grant to utilize the grant funds in any reasonable manner, as long as the funds are expended in furtherance of the program elements or other requirements the department establishes. Housing, transportation, and child care expenses for program participants shall be considered an allowable use of grant funds. 10) Specifies that benefits an individual in a pilot program receives may be in addition to any other public assistance benefits for which the individual may be eligible. 11) Permits grant-funded organizations to set their own eligibility criteria for their programs as long as the eligibility criteria are consistent with the goals of the pilot project. The criteria for eligibility set by the organization do not affect an individual's eligibility for CalWORKs benefits, as determined by the county. 12) Requires that organizations receiving grant funding contact the county welfare department upon being notified of the grant and make a good faith effort to coordinate their programs with CalWORKs requirements. SB 659 (Bates) PageF of? 13) Specifies that client participation in a program administered by an organization receiving grant funding under the pilot is voluntary. 14) Requires that CDSS or the contracted evaluator send a report evaluating the effectiveness of the programs funded by the grants to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature no later than December 31, 2021, as specified, and post the report on the department's Internet Web site. 15) Prohibits the report from identifying individuals who participate in the program, or from containing personally identifiable information. 16) Sunsets the pilot project on July 1, 2022. FISCAL IMPACT This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee; however it contains a $50 million General Fund appropriation over five years for the purposes of funding the pilot program described. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Purpose of the bill: The author states that California has the highest rate of poverty in the nation and that, while California's spending on education and highways is well below the national averages, California's welfare spending is excessive. The author cites a 2013 study that indicated 37 percent of California families headed by an adult without a high school diploma are living in poverty while just 20 percent of families headed by an adult with a high school diploma are similarly poor. According to the author, SB 659 "will help move families out of poverty through a holistic approach that address the root problems of families in crisis and supports the overall well-being of the children." The author states that this bill will "provide funding for innovative programs that are designed SB 659 (Bates) PageG of? to guide, counsel and teach families how to transform their lives and offer the tools for real change." POVERTY The federal poverty rate is updated annually to reflect price shifts in food, using a basic formula that was created in the 1960s. More recently, the California Poverty Measure, published by researchers at Stanford University's Center on Poverty and Inequality and the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), attempts to refine California's data to include geographic and demographic differences throughout the state. The California Poverty Measure takes into account costs of living besides food, including transportation, child care, medical out of pocket expenses. Researchers have indicated that California's high poverty rate is significantly impacted by the state's high housing costs and other high costs of living. Children suffer the highest poverty rates. A 2014 Stanford poverty center report found that 26.3 percent of young children - aged 6 or younger - were below poverty under the California Poverty Measure, and 24.9 percent were classified below poverty using the official measure. The 2015 poverty threshold is reflected below. ----------------------- | 2015 Federal Poverty | |Thresholds | ----------------------- |-----------+-----------| |Persons in | Poverty | |family/hous| guideline | | ehold | | |-----------+-----------| | 1 | $11,770 | |-----------+-----------| | 2 | $15,930 | |-----------+-----------| | 3 | $20,090 | |-----------+-----------| SB 659 (Bates) PageH of? | 4 | $24,250 | |-----------+-----------| | 5 | $28,410 | |-----------+-----------| | 6 | $32,570 | |-----------+-----------| | 7 | $36,730 | |-----------+-----------| | 8 | $40,890 | |-----------+-----------| | Each |$4,160 per | |additional | person | ----------------------- ----------------------- | Source: US Health and | |Human Services Agency | | | ----------------------- TANF and CalWORKs In 1935, Congress authorized Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the nation's first welfare program, amid the Great Depression to stabilize the families of jobless Americans, which were estimated to be one-quarter of the nation's workforce. Six decades later, the AFDC cash entitlement program was replaced by the Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), which set time limits on receipt of federal benefits, and mandated work participation rates. While the federal time limit for aid is 60 months, California's lifetime limit for adults in the CalWORKs program is 48 months, with 24 of those months contingent upon meeting federal work participation requirements. The CalWORKs program provided TANF cash assistance to approximately 510,000 families in 2015 - including more than 1 million children, according to CDSS. A family's grant level is determined by the number of family members and the cost of living in the county, and adjustments are made based on the family's income, if any. SB 659 (Bates) PageI of? In the past five years, California's CalWORKs benefit has undergone significant grant cuts, the elimination of a Cost of Living Adjustment, and a radical restructuring of the welfare-to-work activities, requirements and time limits. In 2011, the lifetime limit for adults was reduced from 60 to 48 months. SB 1041 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 47, Statutes of 2012) created the Welfare-to-Work 24-month time clock, which permits greater program flexibility during the first 24 months, but then imposes far more rigid requirement to remain eligible once the 24-month clock expires. Welfare to Work Unless exempt for reasons such as disability or caregiving for an ill family member, adults must participate in work or other allowable activities, including job search, and certain educational activities. Depending on family composition, these activities are required for 20, 30, or 35 hours per week. The program also offers supportive services, such as childcare and - in a limited number of cases - housing support. Efforts to refocus the welfare to work program A December 2014 report issued by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), underscores research that shows successful welfare to work outcomes include an assessment for mental health and substance abuse problems followed by appropriate therapy in conjunction with work preparation activities, subsidized employment programs to create work experience for participants, and training for specific types of jobs. Faced with budget-driven cuts to the CalWORKs program, the Legislature and Governor in 2013 identified a series of services to improve the outcomes of individuals within the county's programs (AB 73, Budget Committee, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2013). Included among those services were a statewide assessment tool administered at the beginning of the program to help identify barriers; intensive case management and family stabilization services for those identified as having significant barriers to work; additional subsidized employment slots to give clients the work experience they need; community college, adult education and vocational classes; a more flexible "flow" within the program so that individuals can skip job club SB 659 (Bates) PageJ of? and go straight to other paths that may be better suited to their background and skills. Family Stabilization Family stabilization, which is in the process of being rolled out statewide, is intended to increase client success during the flexible Welfare-to-Work 24-Month Time Clock period by helping stabilize clients who are in crisis. Services include intensive case management with a caseworker who has a lowered caseload, and supports to address barriers. A crisis that might warrant a referral to family stabilization program could include homelessness or imminent risk of homelessness, unsafe living conditions due to domestic violence or untreated or undertreated behavioral needs. What distinguishes family stabilization from existing practices and services is the intensive case management and a more robust assessment to identify less visible barriers. For the first time, caseworkers also have the ability to refer other family members for services if their troubles are creating a barrier to employment for the adult CalWORKs participant, such as a child's untreated behavioral needs. As of December 2014, there were 1,300 family stabilization cases opened statewide, and 40 percent of those receiving services were children. In the third quarter of 2015, 8,261 individuals were receiving family stabilization services, of which 2,551 were children. The state's effort to complete mandated changes to the welfare-to-work program was the subject of a joint Senate Human Services and Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee #3 hearing in March 2015. Panelists testified that recent changes to the program could enable families to receive more individualized, career-focused services once the programs are fully implemented. Rapid rehousing program Budget trailer bill in 2014 established a rapid housing support program for CalWORKs clients who were homeless. Included in the program are rental assistance and security costs, as well as caseworker engagement with the clients' landlord, home finding, credit repair, and financial literacy. The bill allocated $20 million for the program to 20 counties. County plans project that more than 3,000 homeless CalWORKs families will be placed SB 659 (Bates) PageK of? in permanent housing through the program. At least one county includes regular mental health counseling visits for clients. For 2015-16, the total funding grew to $35 million and an additional 24 counties received funding, for a total of 44 currently participating counties. Housing First Housing First is an approach toward fighting homelessness that provides permanent, affordable housing for homeless families and individuals, and then provides supportive services in order to help people avoid returning to homelessness. Housing First is premised on the idea that housing should not be denied to anyone, even if they are abusing alcohol or other substances. According to the U. S Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Housing First is an approach to quickly and successfully connect individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing without preconditions and barriers to entry, such as sobriety, treatment or service participation requirements." Under Housing First, supportive services are offered to maximize housing stability and prevent returns to homelessness as opposed to addressing predetermined treatment goals prior to permanent housing entry. The Housing First model, thus, is philosophically in contrast to models that require commitment to clean and sober living in exchange for housing, such as the pilot program envisioned in this bill. While no bill has been introduced as of January 11, 2 016, it is anticipated that legislation will be introduced this year that would provide housing for the homeless based on the Housing First model. Constitutionality of drug testing mandates As introduced, this bill would have permitted random drug testing in order to ensure a clean and sober environment. That SB 659 (Bates) PageL of? language was stricken from the bill with the April 6, 2015 amendments. Many states have introduced measures to require drug testing for welfare recipients, with a significant increase during and after the recession. A Congressional Research Service report issued in March 2015 noted that lawmakers in a majority of states reportedly proposed legislation in 2011, 2012, 2013, and/or 2014 that would require drug testing of beneficiaries of governmental assistance under certain circumstances.<1> The report cited two federal cases that found state laws conditioning eligibility for new or ongoing benefits upon a drug test were unconstitutional. In 2003, a federal appellate court in Michigan in Marchwinski v. Howard ruled that subjecting every welfare applicant in Michigan to a drug test without reason to believe that drugs were being used, was unconstitutional. In 2013, a federal appellate panel similarly struck down a 2011 Florida law under the same reasoning, arguing that requiring drug testing as a condition of eligibility for TANF violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches, guaranteed under the 4th amendment. "The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied," wrote U.S. District Court Judge Mary Scriven, in her 30-page opinion on the Florida case. The case was brought by Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran, full-time student who had sole custody of his a 5-year-old son and was caring for his disabled mother. His TANF benefit was $241 per month. <2> Additionally, state data in Florida show that the measure produced few results: Just 108 of 4,086 people tested, or 2.6 percent, were found to have been using narcotics. State records showed that the requirement cost more money to carry out than it --------------------------- --------------------------- <1> Congressional Research Service, " Constitutional Analysis of Suspicionless Drug Testing Requirements for the Receipt of Governmental Benefits," March 6, 2015 <2> Lebron v Florida Department of Children and Families, 2011 SB 659 (Bates) PageM of? SB 659 (Bates) PageN of? saved.<3> "In sum, there simply is no competent evidence offered on this record of the sort of pervasive drug problem the State envisioned in the promulgation of this statute," Scriven wrote. Related legislation: SB 855 (Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 29, Statutes of 2014) established in the budget trailer bill a rapid housing support program for CalWORKs clients who were homeless. AB 74 (Budget Committee, Chapter 21, Statutes of 2013) responded to a list of items developed by the CDSS stakeholder workgroup established in SB 1041 and added a number of specific elements to the 24-month clock, including family stabilization. These supports were designed to help adults with barriers to work be better prepared to enter the workforce and sustain employment. SB 1041 (Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, Chapter 47, Statutes of 2012) made significant changes to CalWORKs' welfare to work rules in the face of massive budgetary shortfalls including creation of 24-month Welfare To Work time clock within the state's 48 month limit. COMMENTS This bill would create a pilot project that would run parallel to existing CalWORKs programs. The pilot program would be funded with General Fund money - not federal TANF funds. In order to be eligible for a grant, programs must "assist individuals receiving CalWORKs benefits to achieve economic independence." However, CalWORKs enrollment is not a requirement for program participation. Therefore, the pilot programs could serve both CalWORKs recipients and non-CalWORKs recipients. Currently, the state and counties are rolling out family stabilization programs, which would provide families with identified barriers access to intensive case management, mental health counseling for themselves and family members, drug and alcohol treatment, domestic violence therapy and other types of barrier removal. --------------------------- <3> Robles, Frances, "Florida Law on Drug Tests for Welfare Is Struck Down," New York Times, Dec. 31, 2013; SB 659 (Bates) PageO of? The CalWORKs Housing Support Program (HSP) was created as part of the 2014-15 budget agreement. In the first year, 20 counties received $20 million in funding. For 2015-16, the total funding grew to $35 million and an additional 24 counties received funding, for a total of 44 currently participating counties. HSP requires families be employed, supports financial literacy by requiring they put 30 percent of their income into a savings account, and it requires families to participate in regular mental health therapy to obtain housing. The proposed pilot contains many same or similar program components. While the welfare-to-work program is subject to fairly rigorous statutory limitations, including how many months a client can be eligible for services, and what types of services may qualify as eligible, the pilot project in this bill does not require clients to adhere to the same timeline, nor does it appear to require that clients complete any CalWORKs requirements. This could have the effect of providing services to clients in the pilot project that are more generous in duration than those in the rest of the welfare-to-work program. For example, a program participant could leave the pilot program after participating for 24 months and then enroll in CalWORKs and receive CalWORKs services for another 24 months. One difference between this pilot and existing welfare-to-work programs is the requirement that pilot projects include a sober environment with, potentially, random drug testing of participants. Federal courts have ruled in several cases that conditioning benefits and services for the poor on drug testing is unconstitutional, and violates protections against unreasonable search. While the bill's author states that drug testing would not be mandatory, as clients can opt not to participate in a program funded by the pilot, it remains unclear whether this requirement is constitutional, given the pilot's potential link to CalWORKs Another difference is the centering of control over this program with CDSS, rather than the counties. Currently, counties contract with many community nonprofit providers in building services for their welfare-to-work clients, including child care referrals, mental health treatment, education and other services. This bill, rather than building on those existing SB 659 (Bates) PageP of? networks, would require CDSS to create a new grant program, which would be the only one of its kind to be administered directly by the state, according to CDSS. Also, and potentially more concerning, is the lack of standardization or guarantee of equal access and eligibility across grantees. SB 659 (Bates) PageQ of? Recommended Amendments: Urban, Suburban and Rural Setttings The bill seeks $50 million from the General Fund to support the grants, but it does not provide for parameters on where the pilot programs receiving grants might be located. It is possible that all of the funds could be granted in one community. In order to ensure communities throughout the state are given the opportunity to benefit from the pilot program, the committee recommends this bill be amended to further define the grant participation criteria to allow one program each in urban, suburban and rural settings to obtain grant funds. This would also ensure the pilot programs are sufficiently funded to provide the scope of services defined in the bill. Periodic Progress Reports The bill requires CDSS to develop an ongoing evaluation, utilizing objective criteria, of the effectiveness of the program in teaching participants the skills necessary to achieve economic independence. The January 4, 2016 amendments require the department to develop a periodic progress report for the duration of the project. The difference between the evaluation criteria and the progress report is unclear, and the two reports appear to be duplicative. The Committee recommends removal of the "periodic progress report" from the bill. Criminal Background Checks for Volunteer Child Care Providers The bill currently requires "each participating child care provider" to obtain a criminal record clearance pursuant to Section 1596.871 of the Health and Safety Code. According to the author's office, the bill is modeled after a program in which program participants might gain work experience as volunteers by providing childcare services. Under such a program, both employees and volunteers may provide childcare services. Therefore, the committee recommends amending the bill to expressly state that "each participating childcare provider" includes both employees and volunteers. This would ensure all childcare providers are properly screened. Sober Living Policy SB 659 (Bates) PageR of? The bill would require pilot programs to provide a clean and sober environment, but there are some questions about how that would be enforced. For example, what would happen if a participant was suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol and who would determine when or how a participant might be terminated from the program? The committee recommends clarifying these questions by requiring the pilot programs to adopt a sober living policy that would ensure that program participants are aware of their expectations and the consequences of violating the policy. Drug Testing The pilot programs would serve both CalWORKs recipients and non-recipients. It would be funded via General Fund, not TANF funds, and "criteria for eligibility set by the organization do not affect an individual's eligibility for CalWORKs benefits." Therefore, it appears that CalWORKs recipients who participate in a pilot program would not lose their welfare supports if they were terminated from the pilot program as a result of a failed drug or alcohol test. As discussed previously in this analysis, mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, as a condition of receiving welfare benefits has been found to be unconstitutional. As it currently reads, this bill would allow, but not mandate, drug testing of pilot program participants. According to the author's office, drug testing is an essential feature of the existing programs on which the bill is modeled. This approach is inconsistent with the Housing First model. The committee recommends amending the bill to state that program participants may not be required to submit to drug or alcohol testing. Temporary Housing The bill does not include housing as mandatory program element. According to the author's office, the pilot programs are intended to provide temporary housing, along with the other services outlined in the bill. Therefore, the committee recommends that the bill be amended to state that temporary housing is a mandatory program element. Coordination and Collaboration with County Human Services SB 659 (Bates) PageS of? The County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) has requested amendments that would enhance coordination and collaboration between pilot project organizations and county human services agencies. Specifically, CWDA suggested that the department take into consideration the extent to which a grant applicant has conferred with and collaborated with county human services agencies. CWDA also suggested that the pilot projects must collaborate and coordinate with county human services agencies on procedures for CalWORKs referrals, progress reports and other communications. The committee recommends accepting these amendments. Medical Service for Program Participants The bill is currently silent on medical services for program participants. In order to ensure program participants would have access to the full scope of medical services, the committee recommends that the bill be amended to require that programs shall not limit the participants' ability to access a full scope of physical, psychosocial and mental health services. Anti-Discrimination While existing law, Government Code section 11135, already prohibits denial of state services and discrimination based on any protected class, the committee recommends including compliance with this Government Code section 11135 in the criteria for pilot program participation. This would ensure pilot programs are not excluding certain groups from the program or mandating participation in religious activity. Additional staff comments: Should this bill pass out of Senate Human Services Committee, it would be helpful for the author to further address the following issues which have been raised by interested parties: 1) Would or could participation in the pilot program meet certain welfare to work requirements for CalWORKs recipients? 2) Allowing pilot programs to set their own eligibility requirements might allow programs to exclude certain groups SB 659 (Bates) PageT of? of people who might otherwise be eligible for state funded services. How might the state set parameters for program participation eligibility? 3) Welfare recipients have a very strict timeclock set on their eligibility requirements. Should a similar time limit be set for the pilot programs? Mock Up of Amendments for SB 659 ******** To be taken in Senate Appropriations Committee ********* SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) California is expected to spend $142 billion on health and human services programs this year, which is by far the largest state budget expenditure, while total education spending for kindergarten, grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and higher education programs is only $80 billion per year. (b) California has the fifth largest Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash grant in the nation, and the second largest amongst the 10 largest states, yet poverty remains a persistent problem. (c) We must recognize that California's problems of poverty and inequality do not stem from a lack of safety net programs. (d) California's social safety net needs to invest in programs that elevate people out of poverty rather than helping people live better in poverty. SEC. 2. Article 3.7 (commencing with Section 11337) is added to Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to read: SB 659 (Bates) PageU of? Article 3.7. Opportunity Grant Pilot Project 11337. (a) The State Department of Social Services, in consultation with the County Welfare Directors Association of California, shall, no later than July 1, 2017, design and implement a five-year pilot project under which monetary grants are provided to organizations operating programs that assist individuals receiving CalWORKs benefits achieve economic independence. (b) In developing the pilot project described in subdivision (a), the department shall, at a minimum, do all of the following: (1) Develop a competitive review process for all grant proposals submitted and a methodology to determine grant amounts. To the extent possible, the competitive review process shall ensure that funding is granted to programs that are located in three total regions: one urban, one suburban and one rural. (2) Develop eligibility requirements for organizations seeking a grant. The eligibility requirements shall, at a minimum, require an organization's program to include all of the elements specified in subdivision (d). The eligibility requirements for organizations seeking a grant do not affect an individual's eligibility for CalWORKs benefits, as determined by the county. (3) Develop an ongoing evaluation, utilizing objective criteria, of the effectiveness of an organization receiving grant funding in teaching its program participants the skills necessary to achieve economic independence. The evaluation criteria shall, at a minimum, include an examination of all of the following: (A) The number and percentage of participants that complete the program. (B) The number and percentage of program participants that begin the program with a high school diploma or equivalent. (C) The number and percentage of program participants that achieve a high school diploma or equivalent while in the program. (D) The number of program participants that obtain nonsubsidized SB 659 (Bates) PageV of? employment of at least 20 hours per week by the time of program completion, with regular followup to determine if this minimum level of nonsubsidized employment is maintained for the duration of the ongoing evaluation required by this paragraph. (E) The attainment of academic stability for the children of program participants. The department shall develop a definition of academic stability for purposes of this section. (F) The number and percentage of program participants still receiving CalWORKs benefits upon completion of the program. (G) The average income of program participants at the time of program completion. (H) The number and percentage of program participants that achieve family reunification, when applicable.(4) Develop a periodic progress report for the duration of the pilot project.(c) The department may enter into an agreement with an academic institution or other entity with sufficient expertise for the purpose of creating, performing, or both creating and performing the evaluation required by paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). The department and any academic institution or other entity the department contracts with to create, perform, or both create and perform the evaluation shall seek input from stakeholders during the development process. (d) In order to be considered for a grant, an organization shall, at a minimum, include all of the following elements in its program: (1) Education focused on the attainment of a high school diploma or its equivalent. (2) Mental health services. (3) Employment training. (4) Financial training. (5) Parenting skills training. SB 659 (Bates) PageW of? (6) Life skills training. (7) Child care services. Each participating child care provider shall obtain a criminal record clearance pursuant to Section 1596.871 of the Health and Safety Code. Child care providers subject to this section includes paid employees and volunteers If the organization serves only pregnant women, the organization shall not be required to provide child care services to be eligible for grant funding. (8) A clean and sober environment. Each pilot program must establish a sober living policy. Determination that a program participant is not in compliance with the sober living policy is at the discretion of the program's on-site manager. Violation of the sober living policy is grounds to terminate a participant from the pilot program. Mandatory testing for drug or alcohol use, for pilot project participants only, is prohibited. (9) Comprehensive, targeted case management to assist program participants. (10) Ongoing monitoring of program participants for at least five years after they have completed the program for purposes of measuring long-term program effectiveness. (11) Trauma-informed social work. (12) Temporary housing on a 24 hours a day, seven days a week basis, which includes food facilities. (e) The organization shall demonstrate in its grant application how it will coordinate its program with CalWORKs requirements. In considering the applications received and determining which organizations to award grants, the Department shall take into consideration the extent to which an organization seeking funding has conferred with and is collaborating with the county human services agency or agencies that would be asked to refer CalWORKs recipients to its program.(e)(f) An organization receiving a grant may utilize the grant funds in any reasonable manner, as long as the funds are expended in furtherance of the program elements or other requirements the department establishes. Housing, SB 659 (Bates) PageX of? transportation, and child care expenses for program participants shall be considered an allowable use of grant funds. (g) An organization receiving a grant shall not limit participants' ability to access a full scope of physical, psycho-social and mental health services. (h) An organization receiving a grant must comply with Section 11135 of the Government Code.(f)(i) (1) The benefits an individual may receive through participation in a program receiving grant funding are in addition to any other public assistance benefits for which the individual may be eligible. (2) Organizations receiving grant funding may set their own eligibility criteria for their programs as long as the eligibility criteria are consistent with the goals of this pilot project. The criteria for eligibility set by the organization do not affect an individual's eligibility for CalWORKs benefits, as determined by the county. (3) Organizations receiving grant funding shall contact the county welfare department upon being notified of the grant and shall make a good faith effort to coordinate their programs with CalWORKs requirements.(3) Organizations receiving grant funding shall contact the county welfare department upon being notified of the grant and shall make a good faith effort to coordinate their programs with CalWORKs requirements.(3) Organizations receiving grant funding shall collaborate and coordinate with the county human services agency or agencies that will be asked to refer CalWORKs recipients to the program in implementing procedures for referrals, regular progress reports, and other communication as needed.(g)(j) Participation in a program administered by an organization receiving grant funding pursuant to this section is voluntary.(h)(k) (1) No later than December 31, 2021, the department, or the academic institution or other entity the department SB 659 (Bates) PageY of? contracted with pursuant to subdivision (c), shall send a report evaluating the effectiveness of the programs funded by the grants to the relevant policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature. The report shall also be posted on the department's Internet Web site. (2) The report required by paragraph (1) shall not reveal the identity of any program participant, nor shall it contain any personally identifiable information. (3) The report required by paragraph (1) shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. 11338. This article shall become inoperative on July 1, 2022, and, as of January 1, 2023, is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2023, deletes or extends the dates on which it becomes inoperative and is repealed. SEC. 3. The sum of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund to the State Department of Social Services for purposes of funding the pilot program developed pursuant to Article 3.7 (commencing with Section 11337) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. POSITIONS Support: Community Action Agency of Butte County County Welfare Directors Association of California Esplanade House Solutions for Change Lutheran Office of Public Policy Western Center on Law and Poverty Oppose: None. -- END - SB 659 (Bates) PageZ of?