BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1084
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1084 (Liu) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee: Human
ServicesVote:4 - 2
Jobs, Econ. Dev. and the Economy 4 - 2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill creates an Economic Security Task Force and requires
it to develop recommendations for reducing poverty and
increasing economic security among Californians. Specifically,
this bill:
1)Creates a task force consisting of 13 members, including two
members of each house of the Legislature, a representative
from the County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA), two
members representing business interests, and two individuals
who have household incomes below the Family Economic
Self-Sufficiency Standard Index.
2)Requires that the task force be co-chaired by CWDA and a
member of the small business community.
3)Allows the secretaries of health and human services and of
labor to participate as nonvoting members.
4)Requires the task force to submit to the governor and the
Legislature an interim report by April 1, 2012, and a final
report by April 1, 2013.
5)Requires the report include a detailed review of current rates
of economic security for each county in Californians and that
it include recommendations that could be implemented beginning
in 2012 to maximize the effectiveness of state programs and
services in order to move 50% of California with incomes below
the federal poverty level toward or above the California
Family or Elder Economic Security Standard Index thresholds by
SB 1084
Page 2
2020.
6)Requires the report include a detailed inventory of all
programs targeted at increasing economic security and reducing
poverty.
7)Requires the task force to seek funding, technical assistance,
staff support, and other resources from philanthropic and
private donations.
8)Prohibits the task force from meeting until the Department of
Finance determines that sufficient funding is available to
support the activities of the task force.
9)States findings and declarations of the Legislature including
stating the goal of the Legislature to move 50% of
Californians with income below the federal poverty line toward
economic security by 2020.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Costs of approximately $350,000 for workload associated with
staffing the Economic Security Task Force and producing the
required annual report. This legislation requires that private
funding be used for this purpose.
2)The costs of accomplishing the goal adopted by the Legislature
to move 50% of those currently living in poverty toward
economic security are unknown but potentially significant,
reaching hundreds of millions of dollars for increased funding
for programs within social services, health services,
employment development, alcohol and drug treatment services,
mental health services, and education to provide families with
the necessary tools they need to lift themselves out of
poverty.
3)Currently, an estimated 370,000 senior citizens in California
receive a Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary
Payment (SSI/SSP) grant as their primary means of income.
Increasing the grant levels for SSI/SSP to move that caseload
toward economic security would require a significant increase
to the $1.25 billion GF already dedicated to that program.
COMMENTS
SB 1084
Page 3
1)Rationale . The intent of this legislation is to develop a
detailed report that inventories all existing anti-poverty
programs and that makes recommendations for moving half of the
people living in poverty toward economic security in the next
decade.
2)Background . The United States Department of Health and Human
Services sets the federal poverty level for 2009 at $22,050
per year for a family of four. Approximately 13% of
Californians live at or below this level. A January 2009 Duke
University study estimates that 27% of California's children
will be living below the poverty threshold in 2010.
In Los Angeles County, which is home to about one-quarter of
the state's children, the poverty rate is projected to jump
from 22% in 2008 to 35% this year, meaning that more than one
out of every three children in Los Angeles County may live
below the federal poverty level. In the six-county Bay Area
(Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and
Santa Clara counties), rates are expected to rise to 15-16% in
2010 from 8 -13% in 2008.
3)Related Legislation . In 2007, AB 1118 (Jones) would have
created the California Child Poverty Council for the purpose
of developing a comprehensive plan for reducing child poverty
in California by 50% by January 1, 2017 and eliminate it
completely by January 1, 2027. The bill was held on this
committee's suspense file.
In 2007, AB 56 (Ma) would have created a cabinet-level
Secretary to End Poverty who had the responsibility to review
all anti-poverty programs within the state and determine
whether or not they were operating in an efficient and
effective manner. The bill was held on this committee's
suspense file.
In 2007, AB 690 (Jones) would have declared that it is the
goal of the Legislature to reduce childhood poverty by one
half by January 1, 2018 and to eliminate it entirely by
January 1, 2028. The bill would have required the Department
of Finance to report, as part of the annual budget process, on
how the Governor's Budget proposal would impact the state's
goal of reducing childhood poverty and required the
Legislative Analyst to analyze the report. The bill was held
in Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.
SB 1084
Page 4
In 2006, AB 2556 (Jones) declared a legislative goal of
eliminating child poverty within 20 years and would require
the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office
to report during budget hearings each year on the impact of
proposed program funding on child poverty rates. That bill did
not include the California Child Poverty Council. The bill was
vetoed by the governor. His veto message described efforts his
Administration had taken to reduce child poverty and concluded
that the bill "is a policy statement more appropriately made
in a resolution and considered through annual budget
hearings."
Analysis Prepared by : Julie Salley-Gray / APPR. / (916)
319-2081