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?