HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06032014 - C.68RECOMMENDATION(S):
ADOPT a "Support" position on SB 899, as introduced (Mitchell), CalWORKs: Eligibility, a bill that 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, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Major first year increase in CalWORKs grant costs of about $205 million (General Fund) based on data from
county consortia indicating 13.33 percent of all children in CalWORKs households (131,400 children) are
currently impacted by the MFG rule. Future annual costs for existing cases could potentially increase by five
percent per year ($10 million increase after the first year) to the extent permitted under AB 85, Chapter
24/2013, the Human Services budget trailer bill.
Potential future costs of $3.9 million to $7.8 million (General Fund) for every 2,500 to 5,000 children born
into CalWORKs families each year who otherwise would have been subject to the MFG rule, with annual
costs cumulatively increasing in subsequent years (after five years, annual costs would grow to $19 million to
$39 million).
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 06/03/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: June 3, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 68
To:Board of Supervisors
From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Date:June 3, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Support Position on SB 899, as introduced, Mitchell, CalWORKs: eligibility.
FISCAL IMPACT: (CONT'D)
Potential minor offset to CalWORKs grant cost increases due to child support payments considered countable
income in lieu of being provided to the CalWORKs family under the MFG rule.
Ongoing potential cost savings in averted administrative hearings related to challenges to MFG determinations.
At an estimated cost of $1,025 per hearing, elimination of 290 hearings per year would result in cost savings of
nearly $300,000 (General Fund) per year.
Potential reduction in CalFresh benefits (Federal) to families whose CalWORKs grant levels will increase under
the repeal of the MFG rule.
One-time costs likely significant and in excess of $150,000 (General Fund) for automation changes necessary to
implement the eligibility changes.
BACKGROUND:
At its May 1, 2014 meeting, the Legislation Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "Support"
on SB 899 to the Board of Supervisors.
Current Status: 04/28/2014: In SENATE Committee on APPROPRIATIONS: To Suspense File.
Summary: SB 899 would expressly prohibit the denial of aid or an increase in the maximum aid payment for a
child born into the family of a CalWORKs recipient, and would not entitle increased benefit payments for months
prior to January 1, 2015. This bill would prohibit the conditioning of eligibility for CalWORKs aid based on an
applicant's or recipient's disclosure of information about being a victim of rape, incest, or contraception failure, as
specified.
Background: Existing law establishes guidelines for determining a family's maximum aid payment under the
CalWORKs program, including all eligible family members, as well as the level of aid to be paid. Existing law
under the maximum family grant (MFG) rule, which was established in California by AB 473 (Brulte) Chapter
196/1994, prohibits an increase in CalWORKs 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. Existing law exempts the following circumstances from this prohibition:
Any child who was conceived as a result of an act of rape 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. 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. 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. If the family does not receive aid for two consecutive months during the 10 months prior to the
child's birth. Children born on or before November 1, 1995. Any child who would qualify for the MFG cap if the
family did not receive aid for 24 consecutive months while the child was living with the family. Any child
conceived when either parent was a non-needy caretaker relative. Any child who is no longer living in the same
home with either parent.
According to the U.C Berkeley Law Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice article, Bringing Families Out of
'Cap'tivity: The Need to Repeal the CalWORKs Maximum Family Grant Rule (April 2013), "Since the early
1990's, 24 states have implemented a child exclusion, or family cap, rule in their welfare programs, the majority
of which exclude all cash benefits for a newborn. Today, California is one of 16 states where a family cap
remains in place. Maryland and Illinois eliminated their programs in 2002 and 2003, respectively, leading the way
for other states."
Proposed Law: This bill repeals Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 11450.04, which establishes and
defines the MFG rule, including exclusions for families in which a mother reports she is a victim of rape, incest or
specified methods of contraception failure. In addition, this bill:
Prohibits an applicant for, or recipient of, CalWORKs aid from being required as a condition of eligibility to
do any of the following:
do any of the following:
Divulge any member of the assistance unit's (AU's) status as a victim of rape or incest.
Share confidential medical records related to any member of the AU's rape or incest.
Use contraception, choose a particular method of contraception, or divulge the method of contraception that
any member of the assistance unit uses.
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 CalWORKs aid.
Specifies that applicants for or recipients of aid are not entitled to increased benefit payments for any month
prior to January 1, 2015, as a result of the repeal of the MFG rule.
Makes uncodified legislative findings and declarations that this legislation is necessary to protect the
reproductive and privacy rights of all applicants for, and recipients of, aid under CalWORKs.
Related Legislation: AB 271 (Mitchell) 2013 is virtually identical to this measure. This bill was held on the
Suspense File of this Committee.
Prior Legislation: Elimination of the MFG rule was part of the 2013-14 Budget Conference Committee package
of proposals that was ultimately rejected by the Legislature.
AB 22 (Lieber) 2007 was substantially similar to this measure. This bill was held on the Suspense File of the
Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
AB 473 (Brulte) Chapter 196/1994 established California's MFG rule and required California to obtain a federal
waiver to implement the rule. This bill was enacted prior to the establishment of the state's CalWORKs program
which implemented the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
The passage of PRWORA eliminated the need for the state to obtain a waiver to implement the MFG rule.
Staff Comments: Based on information provided by the Department of Social Services (DSS) of data collected
from the county consortia, 13.3 percent of total children in CalWORKs families are currently subject to the MFG
rule. This equates to approximately 131,400 children. Based on the CalWORKs grant difference between an AU
of 3 and 4 of $130 (reflecting the five percent increase in CalWORKs grant payments effective March 1, 2014,
pursuant to AB 85 Chapter 24/2013), first-year costs (12 months) to provide CalWORKs grant payments to these
children in existing CalWORKs families would be about $205 million (General Fund). Future annual costs for
existing cases thereafter could potentially increase by five percent per year for higher CalWORKs grant payments
to the extent permitted under AB 85 noted above, subject to projected expenditure and revenue thresholds. The
estimated cost increase due to a five percent grant increase after the first year would be $10 million.
It is unknown how many additional children would be impacted prospectively under the provisions of this bill, as
comprehensive statewide data was unavailable at the time of this analysis on the caseload trend of the number of
children affected by the MFG rule. Based on point-in-time data for Los Angeles County, although the percentage
of cases affected by the MFG rule has declined since 2006, the overall number of MFG children has increased and
the percentage of MFG children to the total number of CalWORKs children has remained relatively stable. For
every 2,500 to 5,000 children born into CalWORKs families each year who otherwise would have been subject to
the MFG rule, additional annual costs in the range of $4 million to $8 million would be incurred, with annual
costs cumulatively increasing in subsequent years.
Under existing law, child support collected on behalf of an excluded child is required to be paid entirely to the
family, rather than to the state or county as reimbursement for public assistance, and is not considered income for
purposes of public benefit calculations. To the extent the provisions of this bill decrease the number of child
support payments paid directly to the family could result in a minor offset in CalWORKs program costs for a
number of child support payments that would be counted as income in the absence of the MFG rule.
To the extent repealing the MFG rule results in the elimination of administrative hearings related to contested
MFG determinations could result in administrative cost savings of nearly $300,000 per year, assuming
approximately 290 MFG-related hearings conducted annually at a cost of $1,025 per hearing would no longer be
required.
required.
According to the Urban Institute study, The Effect of Specific Welfare Policies on Poverty (McKernan and
Ratcliffe, 2006), the family cap policy increases the deep poverty rate of mothers by 12.5 percent and increases the
deep poverty rate of children by 13.1 percent. While the near-term costs of eliminating the MFG rule are
significant, more broadly, the long-term effects of its repeal are unknown but could significantly reduce the costs
of the projected lifetime physical, mental, and social impacts related to children raised in poverty and the
long-term economic and societal effects linked to this policy.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Based on information provided by the Department of Social Services (DSS) of data collected from the county
consortia, 13.3 percent of total children in CalWORKs families are currently subject to the MFG rule. This
equates to approximately 131,400 children. Based on the CalWORKs grant difference between an AU of 3 and 4
of $130 (reflecting the five percent increase in CalWORKs grant payments effective March 1, 2014, pursuant to
AB 85 Chapter 24/2013), first-year costs (12 months) to provide CalWORKs grant payments to these children in
existing CalWORKs families would be about $205 million (General Fund). Future annual costs for existing cases
thereafter could potentially increase by five percent per year for higher CalWORKs grant payments to the extent
permitted under AB 85 noted above, subject to projected expenditure and revenue thresholds. The estimated cost
increase due to a five percent grant increase after the first year would be $10 million.
It is unknown how many additional children would be impacted prospectively under the provisions of this bill, as
comprehensive statewide data was unavailable at the time of this analysis on the caseload trend of the number of
children affected by the MFG rule. Based on point-in-time data for Los Angeles County, although the percentage
of cases affected by the MFG rule has declined since 2006, the overall number of MFG children has increased and
the percentage of MFG children to the total number of CalWORKs children has remained relatively stable. For
every 2,500 to 5,000 children born into CalWORKs families each year who otherwise would have been subject to
the MFG rule, additional annual costs in the range of $4 million to $8 million would be incurred, with annual
costs cumulatively increasing in subsequent years.
Under existing law, child support collected on behalf of an excluded child is required to be paid entirely to the
family, rather than to the state or county as reimbursement for public assistance, and is not considered income for
purposes of public benefit calculations. To the extent the provisions of this bill decrease the number of child
support payments paid directly to the family could result in a minor offset in CalWORKs program costs for a
number of child support payments that would be counted as income in the absence of the MFG rule.
ATTACHMENTS
SB 899 bill text
SENATE BILL No. 899
Introduced by Senator Mitchell
(Coauthors: Senators Beall, Evans, Hancock, Hill, and Liu)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Ammiano, Buchanan, Dickinson,
Garcia, Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Pan, Skinner, and Yamada)
January 14, 2014
An act to add Section 11270.5 to, and to repeal Section 11450.04 of,
the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to CalWORKs.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 899, as introduced, Mitchell. CalWORKs: eligibility.
Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other
social services to needy families through the California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using
federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant
program, state, and county funds. Under existing law, for purposes of
determining a family’s maximum aid payment under the CalWORKs
program, the number of needy persons in the same family is not
increased for any child born into a family that has received aid under
the CalWORKs program continuously for the 10 months prior to the
birth of the child, with specified exceptions.
This bill would repeal that exclusion for purposes of determining the
family’s maximum aid payment and would expressly prohibit the denial
of aid or denial of an increase in the maximum aid payment if a child,
on whose behalf aid or an increase in aid is being requested, was born
into an applicant’s or recipient’s family while the applicant’s or
recipient’s family was receiving aid under the CalWORKs program.
The bill would specify that an applicant or recipient is not entitled to
an increased benefit payment for any month prior to January 1, 2015,
as a result of the repeal of that exclusion or the enactment of that express
99
prohibition. The bill would also prohibit the department from
conditioning an applicant’s or recipient’s eligibility for aid on the
applicant’s or recipient’s disclosure of information regarding rape,
incest, or contraception, as specified, or the applicant’s or recipient’s
use of contraception. The bill would make related findings and
declarations.
Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General
Fund to defray a portion of county aid grant costs under the CalWORKs
program.
This bill would declare that no appropriation would be made for
purposes of the bill.
To the extent that this bill affects eligibility under the CalWORKs
program, the bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (a) Scientific research has demonstrated that young children
line 4 living in deep poverty experience lifelong cognitive impairments
line 5 limiting their ability to be prepared for, and succeed in, school.
line 6 (b) Academic research has documented an increase in missed
line 7 days of school and an increase in visits to hospital emergency
line 8 rooms by children who live in deep poverty.
line 9 (c) The Maximum Family Grant rule was adopted to limit the
line 10 length of time a family could receive basic needs assistance, and
line 11 to limit the amount of assistance a family could receive, through
line 12 the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program
line 13 before the implementation of welfare reform. At the time the rule
line 14 was adopted, there was no limit on the length of time a family
99
— 2 —SB 899
line 1 could receive aid, no work requirements, and the benefits provided
line 2 were approximately 80 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 3 (d) Since the implementation of the Maximum Family Grant
line 4 rule, AFDC has been replaced with the California Work
line 5 Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs), which
line 6 imposes lifetime limits on aid and requires adult CalWORKs
line 7 participants to meet work requirements in order to receive a
line 8 maximum benefit of approximately 40 percent of the federal
line 9 poverty level.
line 10 (e) The Maximum Family Grant rule makes poor children
line 11 poorer, reducing the income of families with infants to below 30
line 12 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 13 (f) This act is necessary to protect infants born to families
line 14 receiving CalWORKs from experiencing lifelong cognitive
line 15 impairments due to the toxic stress of deep poverty and to ready
line 16 those children for participation in California’s public school
line 17 system.
line 18 (g) This act is also necessary to protect the reproductive and
line 19 privacy rights of all applicants for, and recipients of, aid under
line 20 CalWORKs.
line 21 SEC. 2. Section 11270.5 is added to the Welfare and
line 22 Institutions Code, immediately following Section 11270, to read:
line 23 11270.5. (a) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this
line 24 chapter shall not be required as a condition of eligibility to do any
line 25 of the following:
line 26 (1) Divulge that any member of the assistance unit is a victim
line 27 of rape or incest.
line 28 (2) Share confidential medical records related to any member
line 29 of the assistance unit’s rape or incest.
line 30 (3) Use contraception, choose a particular method of
line 31 contraception, or divulge the method of contraception any member
line 32 of the assistance unit uses.
line 33 (b) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter shall
line 34 not be denied aid, nor denied an increase in the maximum aid
line 35 payment, for a child born into the applicant’s or recipient’s family
line 36 during a period in which the applicant’s or recipient’s family was
line 37 receiving aid under this chapter.
line 38 (c) An applicant for or recipient of aid under this chapter shall
line 39 not be entitled to an increased benefit payment for any month prior
line 40 to January 1, 2015, as a result of the repeal of former Section
99
SB 899— 3 —
line 1 11450.04 (as added by Section 1 of Chapter 196 of the Statutes of
line 2 1994) or the enactment of this section.
line 3 SEC. 3. Section 11450.04 of the Welfare and Institutions Code
line 4 is repealed.
line 5 11450.04. (a) For purposes of determining the maximum aid
line 6 payment specified in subdivision (a) of Section 11450 and for no
line 7 other purpose, the number of needy persons in the same family
line 8 shall not be increased for any child born into a family that has
line 9 received aid under this chapter continuously for the 10 months
line 10 prior to the birth of the child. For purposes of this section, aid shall
line 11 be considered continuous unless the family does not receive aid
line 12 during two consecutive months. This subdivision shall not apply
line 13 to applicants for, or recipients of, aid unless notification is provided
line 14 pursuant to this section.
line 15 (b) This section shall not apply with respect to any of the
line 16 following children:
line 17 (1) Any child who was conceived as a result of an act of rape,
line 18 as defined in Sections 261 and 262 of the Penal Code, if the rape
line 19 was reported to a law enforcement agency, medical or mental
line 20 health professional or social services agency prior to, or within
line 21 three months after, the birth of the child.
line 22 (2) Any child who was conceived as a result of an incestuous
line 23 relationship if the relationship was reported to a medical or mental
line 24 health professional or a law enforcement agency or social services
line 25 agency prior to, or within three months after, the birth of the child,
line 26 or if paternity has been established.
line 27 (3) Any child who was conceived as a result of contraceptive
line 28 failure if the parent was using an intrauterine device, a Norplant,
line 29 or the sterilization of either parent.
line 30 (c) This section shall not apply to any child born on or before
line 31 November 1, 1995.
line 32 (d) (1) This section shall not apply to any child to whom it
line 33 would otherwise apply if the family has not received aid for 24
line 34 consecutive months while the child was living with the family.
line 35 (2) This section shall not apply to any child conceived when
line 36 either parent was a nonneedy caretaker relative.
line 37 (3) This section shall not apply to any child who is no longer
line 38 living in the same home with either parent.
line 39 (e) One hundred percent of any child support payment received
line 40 for a child born into the family, but for whom the maximum aid
99
— 4 —SB 899
line 1 payment is not increased pursuant to this section, shall be paid to
line 2 the assistance unit. Any such child support payment shall not be
line 3 considered as income to the family for the purpose of calculating
line 4 the amount of aid for which the family is eligible under this article.
line 5 (f) Commencing January 1, 1995, each county welfare
line 6 department shall notify applicants for assistance under this chapter,
line 7 in writing, of the provisions of this section. The notification shall
line 8 also be provided to recipients of aid under this chapter, in writing,
line 9 at the time of recertification, or sooner. The notification required
line 10 by this section shall set forth the provisions of this section and
line 11 shall state explicitly the impact these provisions would have on
line 12 the future aid to the assistance unit. This section shall not apply
line 13 to any recipient’s child earlier than 12 months after the mailing of
line 14 an informational notice as required by this subdivision.
line 15 (g) (1) The department shall seek all appropriate federal waivers
line 16 for the implementation of this section.
line 17 (2) The department shall implement this section commencing
line 18 on the date the Director of Social Services executes a declaration,
line 19 that shall be retained by the director, stating that the administrative
line 20 actions required by paragraph (1) as a condition of implementation
line 21 of this section have been taken by the United States Secretary of
line 22 Health and Human Services.
line 23 (h) Subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, shall become operative
line 24 on January 1, 1995.
line 25 SEC. 4. No appropriation pursuant to Section 15200 of the
line 26 Welfare and Institutions Code shall be made for the purposes of
line 27 this act.
line 28 SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 29 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 30 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 31 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 32 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
99
SB 899— 5 —