BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE
Senator Carol Liu, Chair
BILL NO: SB 899
S
AUTHOR: Mitchell
B
VERSION: January 14, 2014
HEARING DATE: April 8, 2014
8
FISCAL: Yes
9
9
CONSULTANT: Mareva Brown
SUBJECT
CalWORKs: eligibility
SUMMARY
This bill deletes California's Maximum Family Grant rule,
which prohibits CalWORKs payments from being made on behalf
of children who were conceived after a family begins
receiving aid except in cases of rape, incest or
contraception failure, as specified. This bill also
prohibits an applicant or recipient from being required to
share confidential medical information as a condition of
aid eligibility or from being required to use a specific
type of contraception as a condition of aid eligibility.
ABSTRACT
Existing law :
1) Establishes the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program in federal law, which permits
each state to implement the program under its own
state plan. (42 USC � 601 et seq.)
Continued---
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageB
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 10530)
3) Establishes guidelines for determining a family's
maximum aid payment, including all eligible family
members, as well as the level of aid to be paid, as
specified. (WIC 11450)
4) Prohibits an increase in aid based on an increase in
the number of needy persons in a family due to the
birth of an additional child, if the family has
received aid continuously for the 10 months prior to
the birth of the child, as specified. (WIC 11450.04
(a))
5) Exempts this prohibition in the following
circumstances:
a. Any child who was conceived as a result of
an act of rape, as defined in Sections 261 and
262 of the Penal Code, if the rape was reported
to a law enforcement agency, medical or mental
health professional or social services agency
prior to, or within three months after, the birth
of the child.
b. Any child who was conceived as a result of
an incestuous relationship if the relationship
was reported to a medical or mental health
professional or a law enforcement agency or
social services agency prior to, or within three
months after, the birth of the child or if
paternity has been established.
c. Any child who was conceived as a result of
contraceptive failure if the parent was using an
intrauterine device, a Norplant, or the
sterilization of either parent.
d. If the family does not receive aid for two
consecutive months during the 10-months prior to
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageC
the child's birth.
e. Children born on or before November 1, 1995.
f. If the family did not receive aid for 24
consecutive months while the child was living
with the family.
g. Any child conceived when either parent was a
non-needy caretaker relative.
h. Any child who is no longer living in the
same home with either parent. (WIC 11450.04 (b)
et seq.)
6) Requires that 100 percent of any child support payment
received for a child who is born under the maximum
family grant (MFG) cap - and therefore is not the
recipient of aid - be paid to the family.
Additionally, prohibits any such child support payment
from being counted as income for the purpose of
calculating CalWORKs benefits. (WIC 11450.04 (e))
7) Requires each county welfare department (CWD) to
notify recipients of the MFG provisions in writing at
the time of application and recertification, as
specified. (WIC 11450.04 (f))
8) Requires the California Department of Social Services
(CDSS) to seek appropriate federal waivers to
implement the maximum family aid limit and associated
conditions, as specified, and directs CDSS to
implement the rule on the date the waiver is received
by declaration of the department's director. (WIC
11450.04 (g))
This bill:
1) Makes uncodified legislative findings and
declarations that:
a. Scientific research has demonstrated that
young children living in deep poverty experience
lifelong cognitive impairments limiting their
ability to be prepared for and succeed in school.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageD
b. Academic research has documented an
increase in missed days of school and an increase
in visits to hospital emergency rooms by children
who live in deep poverty.
c. The Maximum Family Grant rule was adopted
to limit the amount of time a family could
receive assistance and to limit the amount of
assistance received. The rule was passed before
implementation of welfare reform. At the time the
rule was adopted, there was no limit on the
length of time a family could receive aid, no
work requirements and the benefits provided were
approximately 80 percent of the federal poverty
level (FPL).
d. Since the rule's implementation, lifetime
limits on aid and work requirements have been
enacted in order to receive a maximum benefit of
approximately 40 percent of the FPL.
e. The MFG rule makes poor children poorer,
reducing the income of families with infants to
less than 30 percent of the FPL.
f. This legislation is necessary to protect
infants born to families receiving CalWORKs from
experiencing lifelong cognitive impairments due
to the toxic stress of deep poverty and to ready
those children for participation in California's
public school system.
g. This legislation is necessary to protect
the reproductive and privacy rights of all
applicants for, and recipients of, aid under the
CalWORKs program.
2) Prohibits an applicant for, or recipient of,
CalWORKs aid from being required as a condition of
eligibility to do any of the following:
a. Divulge that any member of the assistance
unit is a victim of rape or incest.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageE
b. Share confidential medical records
related to any member of the assistance unit's
rape or incest.
c. Use contraception, choose a particular
method of contraception, or divulge the method of
contraception that any member of the assistance
unit uses.
3) Prohibits an applicant for or recipient of CalWORKs
benefits from being denied aid, or denied an increase
in the maximum aid payment, for a child born into the
family during a period in which the family is
receiving aid.
4) Specifies that no increased benefit will be paid
for any month prior to January 1, 2015, as a result of
repealing the prior statute.
5) Repeals WIC 11450.04, which establishes and defines
the maximum family grant rule, including exclusions
for families in which a mother reports she is a victim
of rape or incest or in instances where specified
methods of contraception fail, among other provisions.
FISCAL IMPACT
This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee. A
similar version of this bill, AB 271 (Mitchell), 2013, was
held in the Senate Appropriations Committee. That analysis,
which assumed 13.4 percent of all children on the CalWORKs
caseload are impacted by the MFG rule, estimated a $220
million first-year cost and potential annual costs of $4
million to $8 million.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Purpose of the bill
The author states that as a result of California's MFG
policy, women are forced to make decisions about the types
of birth control they can use if they are receiving public
benefits. Women who are raped are required to report
sensitive and highly personal information to a welfare
caseworker in order for their babies to receive aid,
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageF
according to the author. Some families chose to refuse
assistance (and become very poor) for the last three months
of a pregnancy rather than lose the grant for the new baby
- which is less than $200 a month - but will help pay for
diapers and wipes, according to the author.
The author states that this kind of desperation is
unconscionable to force upon poor women, especially
considering the fact that the maximum grant is only
approximately $608 per month for a family of three - or
just enough to put a family at about 38% of the federal
poverty line.
CalWORKs
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
program (CalWORKs) provides monthly income assistance and
employment-related services intended to move children out
of poverty and to help families meet basic needs. Federal
funding for CalWORKs comes from the TANF block grant.
According to data from CDSS, as of December 2013, 549,464
families relied on CalWORKs, including more than one
million children. Nearly half of the children are under age
six. About 6 percent of families (and 13.4 percent of
children) receiving CalWORKs benefits in California are
subject to the MFG rule, which prohibits a county from
including in a family's aid any benefit for a child born
more than 10 months after a family entered the CalWORKs
program. For a family of three, in which the MFG baby would
become the third member of the assistance unit, the loss in
grant is $123 per month - the difference between a maximum
of $515 per month for a family of two to a maximum grant of
$638 per month for a family of three in 2014.<1>
Maximum Family Grant rule
In 1992, against the backdrop of a debate about whether
"intergenerational welfare" was encouraging women to avoid
-------------------------
<1> California Department of Social Services, Maximum Aid
payment table
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageG
work and have additional children, New Jersey passed the
nation's first statewide family cap policy. The policy
prohibited additional benefits from being provided to a
family for children born after the family began receiving
welfare benefits. The policy, which was soon copied by
other states, came amid a national conversation that would
become the basis for the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which
established a 60-month time-limit on benefits in most
cases, and emphasized integrating parents into the
workforce as part of the program.
Prior to the passage of PRWORA, states needed waivers to
implement family cap policies, which required rigorous
evaluations of whether the policies achieved their intended
goals. AB 473 (Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994)
created California's MFG rule as part of budget trailer
bill, and required California to obtain a federal waiver to
be able to implement the new MFG rule, as the rule was
inconsistent with existing federal regulations.
California's waiver application was approved in August of
1996, however waiver approval coincided with the passage of
PRWORA, which granted states flexibility to implement their
own policies without need for a waiver, and California
proceeded with the MFG policy without implementing the
waiver. California's MFG policy has not been amended since
its original enactment.
The MFG legislation was based on the belief that increasing
welfare grants for children born into AFDC families may
incentivize families to have additional children for the
explicit purpose of increasing their monthly grant. By
limiting the grant amount, policymakers argued that
families would be dissuaded from having additional
children. In a heated floor debate in July 1994, in which
the bill's author argued that the MFG would "encourage the
transition to self-sufficiency," then-Assemblyman John
Burton questioned whether this move would achieve the
intended goal. "Welfare reform is getting people off of
welfare and into a productive role in society with a job,
not starving some kid who happens to be born into a family
that is on AFDC," Burton argued.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageH
How the MFG rule works
California's MFG rule prohibits CalWORKs aid payments, with
certain exceptions, for a child that is born into a family
that has been receiving aid for 10 or more continuous
months, or for longer than the gestational period of the
new baby. If the family is not receiving aid for two or
more months during the 10-month period preceding the birth
of the child, the new child becomes eligible for aid in the
CalWORKs benefit calculation. Additionally, the MFG rule
does not apply if a family returns to CalWORKs after a
break of two or more years during which the family did not
receive any aid, provided aided children are still younger
than 18 years old.
Exceptions to the MFG rule
California's statute permits exceptions to the MFG rule for
incidents in which a child was born as a result of rape or
incest, as long as the mother of the child can document
that she reported the crime to law enforcement or a mental
health professional or social services agency. The report
must have been made prior to the child's birth or within
three months after the child was born.
Similarly, state law permits an exception to the MFG rule
if the child is born as a result of the failure of one of
three types of contraceptives specified in statute:
An intrauterine device,
Norplant (which was discontinued for use in the
United States in 2002 amid questions about its
effectiveness and lawsuits over its side-effects),
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageI
Sterilization of either parent.
Other states
Beginning in the early 1990s, 24 states implemented family
cap rules. Today, just 17 states still have family cap
rules in place, including California. In 2002 and 2003,
Maryland and Illinois repealed their policies and were
followed by Wyoming, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas and
Maryland.<2>
Effect on fertility rates
A number of research studies on the effects of the family
cap across the country have concluded that the cap had
little to no effect on fertility rates.<3>
However, the U.S. General Accounting Office noted in its
2001 examination of the issue that most states implemented
family caps as part of their welfare reforms designed to
provide incentives for women to reduce the number of
out-of-wedlock births and to encourage self-sufficiency.
Specifically, the study noted that "Due to limitations of
the existing research, we cannot conclude that family cap
policies reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock births,
affect the number of abortions, or change the size of the
TANF caseload." It did note, however, that the family cap
was effective in reducing the amount that states were
paying to families who qualified for benefits, estimating
that families were generally receiving about 20 percent
less in cash assistance each month - from $20 less in
-------------------------
<2> Welfare Rules Database, Urban Institute and "Bringing
Families out of Cap'tivity: The Need to Repeal the CalWORKs
Maximum Family Grant Rule," UC Berkeley School of Law,
April 2013
<3> Dyer, Wendy and Robert W. Fairlie, "Do Family Caps
Reduce Out-of-Wedlock Births?" Economic Growth Center, Yale
University, December 2003.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageJ
Wyoming to $121 less in California.<4>
A 2013 report issued by the Center on Reproductive Rights
and Justice at UC Berkeley School of Law concluded that "by
driving families deeper into poverty, the MFG rule
threatens access to housing, food security and general
health of the poorest children. A cutoff from public
assistance has also been linked to other physical, mental
and social detriments for children born into capped
families."<5>
Effects of deep poverty on children
Numerous studies have correlated the effects of deep
childhood poverty with poor health and outcomes including
low birth weight, lead poisoning, child mortality and
hospitalization. Other studies have drawn correlations
between deep poverty and academic struggles such as
repeated grades, being a high school dropout and having a
learning disability.<6> A 2011 article in the journal
Developmental Psychology<7> estimated that a $1,000
increase in annual income - less than $100 per month -
equates to an increase in achievement by young children of
5 to 6 percent of a standard deviation. In 2000,
researchers noted in the journal Child Development that
family caps and sanctions appear to disproportionately
affect families with very young children who are most
susceptible to adverse effects of deep poverty and
recommended policy considerations focus on avoiding fiscal
sanctions to those families.
-------------------------
<4> U.S. General Accounting Office, "More Research Needed
on TANF Family Caps and Other Policies for Reducing
Out-of-Wedlock Births," September 2001, p 2-3.
<5> "Bringing Families out of Cap'tivity: The Need to
Repeal the CalWORKs Maximum Family Grant Rule," UC Berkeley
School of Law, April 2013
<6> Duncan, Greg and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, "Family Poverty,
Welfare Reform, and Child Development," Child Development,
February 2000.
<7> Duncan, Greg, et al, "Does Money Really Matter?
Estimating Impacts of Family Income on Young Children's
Achievement With Data From Random-Assignment Experiments,"
Developmental Psychology, 2011, Vol. 47, No. 5, 1263-1279
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageK
"Recent research suggests that economic deprivation is
most harmful to a child's chances
for achievement when it occurs early in the child's
life. Economic logic suggests that policies aimed at
preventing either economic deprivation itself or its
effects are likely to constitute profitable social
investments in the twenty-first century." <8>
Additionally, a number of researchers building on a 1997
study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and
Kaiser Permanente in San Diego, have correlated adverse
childhood experiences - or ACES - and chronic health
conditions in adulthood.<9>
Related legislation
AB 271 (Mitchell) 2013, was substantially similar to this
bill. It was held in the Senate Appropriations committee.
AB 22 (Lieber) 2007, was substantially similar to this
bill. It was held in the Assembly Appropriations committee.
AB 473 (Brulte, Chapter 196, Statutes of 1994) created
California's maximum family grant (MFG) rule and required
California to obtain a federal waiver to implement it.
POSITIONS
Support: 9to5 National Association of Working Women
American Association of University Women
ACCESS Women's Health Justice
ACT for Women and Girls
Alameda County Community Food Bank
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees
Asian Law Alliance
Bay Area Legal Aid
Beyond Emancipation
Black Women for Wellness
-----------------
<8> Ibid
<9> http://www.cdc.gov/ace/
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageL
Calaveras Health and Human Services Agency
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Church Impact
California Food Policy Advocates
California Hunger Action Coalition
California Immigrant Policy Center
California Latinas for Reproductive Justice
California Partnership
California Partnership to End Domestic
Violence
California Reinvestment Coalition
Center for Law and Social Policy
Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice,
UC Berkeley School of Law
Child and Family Policy Institute of
California
Child Care Alliance of Los Angeles
Children's Defense Fund-California
Citizens for Choice
City and County of San Francisco
Coalition for Women and Children
Coalition of California Welfare Rights
Organizations, Inc.
Community Food and Justice Coalition
County Welfare Directors Association of
California
Cuyamaca College
East Bay Community Law Center
East Bay Refugee Forum
Fresno Interdenominational Refugee
Ministries
Friends Committee on Legislation of
California
Forward Together
G.O.A.L.S. for Women, Inc.
Guam Communications Network
Hunger Action Los Angeles
John Burton Foundation for Children Without
Homes
Justice Now
Korean Community Center for the East Bay
League of Women Voters of California
Legal Aid Society - Employment Law Center
Legal Services for Prisoners With Children
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageM
Legal Services of Northern California
LIUNA Locals 777&792
March of Dimes California Chapter
NARAL Pro-Choice California
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Center for Youth Law
National Council of Jewish Women California
State Policy Advocates
The National Health Law Program
National Organization for Women - Orange
County
National Women's Political Caucus of
California
Parent Voices
Planned Parenthood Advocacy Project of Los
Angeles
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest
Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura
and San Luis Obispo Counties
Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific Action
Fund
Physicians for Reproductive Health
Public Interest Law Project
Poor Magazine/ Prensa Pobre/ PNN
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco Living Wage Coalition
San Luis Obispo County Department of Social
Services
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education
Network
Shelter Partnership
St. Anthony's Foundation
Street Level Health Project
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Veterans Caucus of the California Democratic
Party
Vision y Compromiso
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Western Regional Advocacy Project
W.O.M.A.N., Inc.
The Women's Foundation of California
2 individuals
STAFF ANALYSIS OF SENATE BILL 899 (Mitchell)
PageN
Oppose: None received.
-- END --