Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01211997 - D2 D.2 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on January 21, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Governor Wilson's Proposed Welfare Reform Plan Supervisor Rogers recommended that the Board consider taking a position in opposition to a provision in the Governor's proposed welfare reform plan relative to parents giving up their children for adoption. Chairman DeSaulnier invited the public to comment on this issue and the following persons addressed the Board: Kathy Lafferty, 1344 Sherwood, Concord; Henry L. Clarke, Local #1, P. O. Box 122, Martinez; Pete Williams, 237 Ivy Drive, Orinda (Submitted attached letter to Board members); and Al Simmons, Association for Minority Adolescents in Residential Care Homes (AMARCH), 2936 Lindin, Berkeley. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board members considered the available options relative to this issue and took the following action: 1. REFERRED the request by Supervisor Rogers to take a position in opposition to certain provisions of the Governor's proposed Welfare Reform Plan to the Family and Human Service Committee for review and report to the Board on February 4, 1997; and 2. REFERRED to the Family and Human Services Committee jurisdiction over all aspects of Federal and State Welfare Reform as it may affect or be implemented in Contra Costa County. (As recommended in Item C.45 today) I hereby certify that the foregoing 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: January 21, 1997 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator C ri ' e Wampler, Deputy Clerk cc: Supervisors County Administrator Family and Human Services Committee (via CAO) Social Services Director Told Idiol CONTRA COSTA. COUNTY Swint Service Department DATE: January 13, 1997 TO: supwAsor Jim Rogers FROM John Culler, Director e: Phil Batchelor SUBJECT: Your Request re Relinquishment of Children of Welfare.Recipleents for Adoption in Governor Wilson's Welfare Reform Proposal Last week,the Govenwr pu"y revealed a number of details related to his proposed Welfare Rdozm Program. Included in this package is kulguage that requhs that mothers receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TAI be enwmgW to c=%der relinquishing their children far adoption as an alternative to welfare. We find flus ,proposal to be both ethically unconscionable and fiscally shortaghted. Any regulation that would impose upon a mod=a irequirement to consider adoption solely because of povvaty is unacceptable sad anti-family. Studies in this State have shown that the average length a household currently receives AFDC is' approximately two yews. It makes little sense to Orly sever a parental relationship over what is frequently a temporary, situation problem. Poverty is not an ink of the quality of parenting a gild receives. Many chiles raised in pom and low income fiunilies go on to be highly a lucated and successful. Their moMers and fanners were able to nurlare them, to hold them and comfort them when they hurt, to applaud them when they succeed, to encourage thea achiewcment in school, and to assist them in developing health self-esteem. None of this requires a middle-class income. To even suggest that these families should be disrupted because of poverty ignores do care importance of family". This specific proposal is alio fiscany irresponsible. It presupposes that there are many farm.lies in our communities who are ready to adopt and will assume full financial respans slity for the children. If this were the case, there would not be the meed to actively and constantly recruit adoptive families for ddldmh already in the Ichild welfare systema as a result of abuse and neglect~ Across the State, these are many children of all ages and races who meed permanent families and there is a dearth.of families waiting fir them. If even a percentage of the children in households receliving TANF were relinquished, there is little doubt that they would have to be cared for in group facilities, whether we;can thein Told 62h£9 01 'IcM 3D I A63S -ld I OOS WOJd SS:£I L66 T-£T-W1 i JAN-13-1997 13:57 FROM SOCIAL SERVICE DEPT. -M 63429 P.02 Supervisor Jim Rogers January 13, 1997 Page 2 orphanages or group homes. Their cost of care would be in excem of$3,ODWmonth as opposed to the few hundred a month their parents receive. The public would be faroed to m8sume,this additional financdsl obligation until an adaptive farniYy could be I=W and prepared. Adopt is a good thing. u is a"prafamilf program. It affords the ap nWdty for chill= whose birth parents truly cannot care for them to be raised in a laving home. It should be reserved for children► who have been neglected and/or abused by their birth fannies or whose pa=ts recognize their mm hability to raise a child. Tim .Cover='s arigi" Adoption initiative,passed into law last year,positively ptnnwtea adoption for these children. This should remain the focus of gov+ernmmt's role in adowr►. JBC:sjb RECEIVED 1 /21/97 1997 Board of Supervisors CLERK BOARD Q2 Contra Costa Costa County Any suggestions you send to Governor Wilson on Welfare reform should include the following: The state should assist the county in developing a policy that would require that in order to receive taxpayer support all welfare recipients must immediately work towards independence and contribute to society. The program should include: Develop a baby-sitting coop where all welfare recipients must spend 2 days a week taking care of at least two other recipients children. This would give each recipient 4 days a week without their children to do the following required activities: Do community service such as litter or graffiti removal. Serve as an unpaid intern for business or government. Improve job skills. Accepting a minimum wage job should not result in loss of basic medical care for the children. Fathers should be required to participate in all the baby-sitting and community service programs. - Drug testing and treatment should be required where appropriate. - - - I am available to assist you or county staff in developing details. Sincerely, � r Pete Williams 237 Ivy Drive Orinda, CA 94563 Phone 510-376-2715 , e-mail PETEPATWMS@AOL.COM - . p2 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Administration Building 651 Pine Street, 11th Floor Martinez DATE: January 16, 1997 TO: Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Jim Rogers Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema Supervisor Donna Gerber Supervisor Joe Cand milla FROM: Claude L. Van Mae sistant County Administrator SUBJECT: GOVERNOR'S BUDGET PROPOSAL REGARDING ADOPTION OF WELFARE CHILDREN On January 14, 1997, Supervisor Rogers asked that an item be agendaed for January 21, 1997 dealing with a proposal made by the Governor in the welfare reform portion of his Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year having to do with advocating the adoption of welfare children. Supervisor Uilkema asked that we provide the Board with the specific language referred to by Supervisor Rogers. Attached for the Board's consideration is the welfare reform portion of the Governor's Budget. Please see the highlighted "bullet" on page 20, which reads as follows: "+ Recipients - especially those who are themselves minor children -should be offered every assistance in placing their children for adoption, recognizing that such a decision is a courageous, wise, and ultimately unselfish choice by the parent to give the child a home and opportunity which otherwise cannot be offered." We have been unable to identify any other place in the Budget where this or similar language is contained. This language, and the document in which it is contained, however, are an integral part of the Governor's Budget submission to the Legislature and should, therefore, be considered a proposal made in the Governor's Budget. - 2 - Also attached is a copy of Mr. Cullen's January 13, 1997 memo to Supervisor Rogers on this subject. CLVM:amb Van01-57-97 Attachments cc: John Cullen, Social Service Director i,. I 1 RS ER Gov No BuDGET MMARY .SJR t• SUBMITTED BY PETE WILSON, GOVERNOR cgt1FORN�P STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 1997-9$ REGULAR SESSION REFORMING CALIFORNLAS WELFARE SYSTEM Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), California's largest welfare program, has ; provided cash assistance to help needy families meet the basic requirements of food, shelter and clothing. The Program was developed in 1935 to provide support to single mothers who were • • • • • • •� widowed and for those who were abandoned by their husbands. At that time, the societal expec- tation for mothers was different than it is today: then, a mother's work was in the home. ...the Governor Sixty years after its inception, AFDC no longer resembles the Program's original intent. It has has evolved into a system discouraging work and encouraging dependency by allowing recipients to ; choose welfare as a way of life. Further, it creates dependency not only for a single generation, successfully but for multiple generations. pushed for Currently, only 20 percent of welfare recipients work. The rate of births to unmarried women has the most tripled in the past 30 years—roughly half of welfare recipients had their first child as a teenager, significant and one in three women, while on AFDC, has had ar-additional child. California also has the highest dependency rate in the nation, with 10 perce-it of all women of child-bearing age and changes to the 20 percent of all children receiving AFDC. As a resullt, California, which has 12 percent of the welfare system nation's population, has 20 percent of the nation's welfare caseload. in the State's ' WELFARE REFORM n CALIFORNIA history. In order to reverse these trends,the Governor has successfully pushed for the most significant changes to the welfare system in the State's history. Further, he has called on the federal govern- ment repeatedly to fundamentally modify the state-federal relationship in order to achieve even ; broader reforms. The Governor's reforms,which have been supported by the Legislature, have been aimed at assisting individuals in moving from oependency to self-sufficiency, while combat- ; ing welfare fraud so that limited taxpayer dollars go only to those in true need of assistance. ]FEDERAL WELFARE REFORM LEGmxnori The open-ended entitlement of the AFDC Program, and the rigid and cumbersome federal waiver ; system, have been a major contributor to the slow pace of welfare reform. However, the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 allows states to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I _ C A L I F 0 ft h I A D 0 V E R h 0 R S 8 0 D G C T S U M M A R Y 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 '�" x a'�°:'uu."�>�...ca:S:z. .a<.Ln�mss��9sx.•.asocaucc, 'u�`as,. 1 �////' ` FORMING CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE SYSTEM make much-needed changes to welfare programs. Based on a new federal-state partnership, this federal law makes state welfare reforms possible by granting states new discretion to fundamen- tally change their cash assistance programs. Federal welfare reform ends both the AFDC Program and the federal entitlement to welfare— eliminating the Program's autopilot spending as well as the expectation that welfare is an accept- able way of life. In its place, a block grant to states—called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)—will provide transitional cash assistance to families through programs designed . . . . . .O. . . . . . by the states. A separate block grant is provided for child care. Unlike AFDC, TANF aid is time limited for a national lifetime limit of 60 months (whether cumulative or consecutive), except for • hardship exemptions which the State can grant for up to 20 percent of its caseload. This means a The most welfare recipient must move from welfare to work in no more than 60 months or lose federal TANF importantrole support. In addition, states are given the opportunity to create shorter time limits, as well as broad flexibility within other areas of the welfare program. of state govern- mentin welfare Work participation requirements are a second area of major change. AFDC did not require recipi- ents to work. Welfare reform establishes specific work requirements for all families, and holds reform is to states accountable for work participation. States are required to sanction (or, at their option, drop provide the from the caseload) families refusing to participate in approved work activities. Similarly, parents are required to cooperate in the child support process,and must be sanctioned or dropped from the environment caseload if they do not. It also requires that paternity be established for at least 90 percent of that will most children receiving aid; states not meeting this requirement or not demonstrating improvement in paternity establishment may be sanctioned. encourage the continuing These reforms fundamentally change the operation and purpose of welfare. They provide broad discretion to states, making aid temporary and requiring work by recipients as a condition of eligi- vibranteco- bility for assistance. As a result, recipients must earn their assistance. Further, welfare is made a f transitional program rather than a means of permanent support. Moreover, assistance will be no nomic more financial) attractive than work b not increasing rant levels for recipients who have addi- Y. Y g g P� growth.... tional children. l . . . . .. . . . . . . TnE GovEm ioR's PROPOSAL To REFORM WELFARE Using the new flexibility provided by welfare reform, and implementing the State reforms that have already been enacted,the Governor is presenting his proposal for the reform of California's welfare system. The Governor's proposal encourages work,personal responsibility,and self-suffi- ciency for able-bodied recipients; at the same time it continues aid for those unable to care for themselves and ensures a safety net for children's needs. F' • Principles and Precepts i The Governor's proposal is based upon the following principles and precepts: �� ♦ The most important role of state government in welfare reform is to provide the environment that will most encourage the continuing vibrant economic growth required to produce all the jobs needed to keep pace with California's relentlessly growing population. ♦ Public assistance must be only a temporary transition to employment and self-sufficiency for anyone who can work. It must be expressly time-limited. It must be financially less attractive than a full-time minimum wage job. It must be limited to those who are truly needy by nx I MEIN" 11-0 - - .. - - •• a n 0 0 F. T S U M-4t A R Y 9 9 7 - 9 8 f2 Y�..t'GC: ' " J:Sb2i7.1:3S:S:Y,CJL•iw..,: ,.:.,_.,».a..:..;u+..•t..r_.ro...naTae. .:.v�vlrc�:t•df:.�.'.-xn.c-..:i... `...:_�.�.v.,,-.:...:_..__. . ......,_ REFORMING CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE SYST vigorous enforcement of fraud prevention, and noncash grants should be used to the maximum extent possible. ♦ The obligation of the State is to set basic program standards including grant levels, eligibility criteria, and time limits. The success of the program is dependent upon counties having maxi- mum flexibility to expend block grant funds to achieve results. Counties will be judged upon their results and not compliance with bureaucratic process. Counties will be strongly encour- aged to use private charities that have proven to have effective welfare-to-work programs, to achieve personal supervision of recipients, as an alternative to increasing county bureaucracy. - ♦ Work is the primary activity deemed to satisfy the federal requirement for work activity. Recipients are to be strongly encouraged to improve their employability and to improve them- selves generally by education and training which will be a secondary, and only a partial, ...the well-being e method of satisfying the work activity requirement. To provide recipients hope of a better job of children is and upward mobility, the county may continue assisting the recipient after his or her accep- tance of a job by directing them to education and training to enhance their employment ; paramount. potential. ...As counties ♦ Any legal job is better than subsidized idleness. Any legal job is an acceptable means of enter- realize savings ing the work force and must be accepted by the recipient, even if it is not as good a job or the from moving kind of job that the recipient desires. Prospective employers will be asked to inform the county or its agent of any job offered to a recipient as a result of a referral. Able-bodied recipient par- ; recipients to ents who refuse to work will, in the absence of circumstances that prevent them from doing so, work,they be terminated from aid. should place ♦ Vigorous,purposeful job search resulting in employment is both the personal responsibility of ; the recipient and the primary mission of the county as the administering agency. priorityin reinvesting ♦ To succeed,there must be state/local/private/nonprofit partnerships that emphasize pay-for- those funds in performance to move a recipient from temporary assistance to employment as early as possible. And to do so most effectively, the county should have the flexibility to do whatever is neces- programs that . sary to immediately place an individual in employment, from assuring subsidized child care ensure the and health care coverage, to paying for carfare or needed minor car repair, or clothing for a job interview. health and ♦ Consistent with the block grant approach taken to allow counties to achieve greater flexibility safetyof and responsiveness, counties should be relieved of the legal requirement to provide a cash aid children. General Assistance program as presently prescribed by the Welfare and Institution Code. ♦ To provide incentives to both the state and counties to be as responsive, effective, and efficient . . . . . . as possible, the State and counties should share in the federal MOE requirements, and in what- ever federal penalties for failure may result, and in whatever savings may be achieved from success. ♦ Most important,the well-being of children is paramount. The right to be a parent in more than the strict biological sense is not unconditional. To the contrary, the right to be a parent is in- separable from the obligation of parental responsibility. If, for whatever reason a parent fails in this program, the health and safety of the child should be assessed. As recognized in current law regarding the safety of children, the counties should ascertain whether the best interest of the child requires placement with another family member or in foster care. As counties realize savings from moving recipients to work,they should place priority in reinvesting those funds in programs that ensure the health and safety of children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r n I . a n P v . n r. n P F P ry n p • C 0. 11 n (; 1 T < 11 M M A R Y I Q Q 7 - Q ft FORMING CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE SYSTEM ♦ To encourage parents to raise children to be healthy and productive, proof of school attendance and immunization will be required prior to eligibility for the program. ♦ Public assistance should not reward or encourage irresponsible or anti-family behavior by either women or men. And yet that is precisely what unreformed welfare has done by shifting finan- cial responsibility of the parents to the taxpayer and trapping recipients by making welfare • more attractive than work. The new program should not encourage out-of-wedlock births and should build on initiatives already undertaken to prevent unwed and teenage pregnancy. ♦ Recipients—especially those who are themselves minor children—should be offered every assis- tance in placing their children for adoption, recognizing that such a decision is a courageous, wise, and ultimately unselfish choice by the parent to give the child a home and opportunity which otherwise cannot be offered. Building on Successful Reforms The Governor's proposal builds upon the successful state reforms that have already been enacted, including: • ♦ Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN), a work training and education program to enhance recipients' ability to move into the workforce. ♦ The Cal-Learn Program, which provides services and financial incentives to keep teen parents in school until high school completion. ♦ The Maximum Family Grant, which prohibits increases in grants for children conceived while a family is on welfare. ♦ The Teen Pregnancy Disincentive, which requires teen mothers to live at home or in an adult- supervised setting as a condition of eligibility for aid and removes the incentive of pregnancy as a means to gain financial independence. ♦ Relocation Grants, which discourage welfare recipients from other states from moving to • California by restricting grant payments to the level of their prior state of residence. it • � ' ♦ Regional Grants, which provide two grant levels to account for regional differences in housing costs. ♦ Transitional Child Care,which provides up to 24 months of child care to recipients who have moved from welfare to work. ♦ Transitional Medi-Cal, which provides up to 24 months of Medi-Cal eligibility to recipients who have moved from welfare to work. j ♦ The Statewide Fingerprint Imaging System, which reduces the incidence of multiple-case fraud by identifying applicants through fingerprint imaging. ♦ The United States Residency Verification Program, which stations investigators at border crossing points to identify and stop non residents from receiving welfare to which they are not entitled. r r �i F R n 0 R A S B U D OE T S U M M A R Y I 9'9 7 - 9 $ REFORMING CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE SYST ♦ Enhanced overpayment collection incentives system, which encourage counties to increase their collection efforts. The Governor's Budget assumes that this new welfare program will begin on January 1, 1998,with full implementation in fiscal year 1998-99. The major components of the Governor's proposal are as follows: Program Structure and Governance . . . . . . .0. . . . . . A major objective of the Governor's proposal is to give counties maximum flexibility and fiscal incentives to help people move from welfare to work within statewide program standards. The Amajor current system is driven by volumes of state and federal rules which strive for bureaucratic unifor- mity and discourage county initiative. It would be replaced by one that responds to welfare re- objective...is to cipients as individuals,eliminates barriers to work, and uses the tools necessary and available at . give counties the local level to move recipients into the workforce. maximum ♦ The State will set basic program standards, including grant levels, eligibility criteria, and time flexibility and limits. fiscal incen- ♦ The State will provide funds to counties in a block grant. Under the block grant, counties will tives to help have the flexibility to fund administration and special needs services to divert people from welfare. Counties may also provide additional employment and/or supportive services, such as People move child care, mental health treatment or alcohol and drug treatment. from welfare to ♦ The costs of grants and caseloads will be funded using current state/county sharing ratios. work.... However, as an incentive to move people into the workforce, counties will be given 25 percent ; of the State's share of caseload reduction savings to reinvest into the program. 1 ♦ The State and counties will share in federal maintenance-of-effort requirements, as well as any assessed federal penalties such as failing to meet federal work participation requirements. i! ♦ Those provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code that require counties to operate a cash aid ; General Assistance(GA) Program will be repealed. This will provide counties with greater flex- ibility to determine how best to deal with able-bodied adults who do not qualify for other assis- tance programs. Eligibility,Time Limits,and Penalties for Fraud The Governor's proposal underscores the temporary nature of public assistance,which is only in- tended to provide recipients with assistance while moving into the workforce as quickly as pos- sible. Unlike AFDC, it is not a needs-based system, but one making work more attractive than ; welfare while continuing to provide for the needs of children. The Governor's proposal requires recipients to work or participate in approved activities as a condition of eligibility for grants. In addition, the Governor's continuing efforts to reduce welfare fraud helps to ensure that only those in true need of assistance receive benefits. ♦ Consistent with federal law, the Governor's proposal establishes a cumulative state lifetime limit of five years on aid, including time on aid in other states. However, to emphasize the importance of moving into the workforce as quickly as possible, shorter time limits are proposed for each period of time on aid. Starting January 1, 1998, existing able-bodied recipients may . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ C A L I F 0 R fl 1 A G 0 V E R M 0 R ' S 6 U D G E T S U M M A R Y 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 ._....�-.—.-.-.--------------.--_ __+..•.a..•errs.s+a-�....reauu.r..s v...iwcxmuw.w.w.m- -- ...c.aw.r CiTn xa(d".eS�J�9+Xr..V_4hl...SaYa.+.a.,... _ TRMING CALIFORNIA"S WELFARE SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . only receive aid for 24-cumulative months during any 36-month period. New recipients will only be eligible for 12-cumulative months during any 24-month period. ♦ Recipients will be required to work or to participate in approved job training. Those not partici- pating at required levels will receive a reduced grant, and those refusing to participate will not be eligible. ♦ Those who can avoid the need for public assistance through the provision of special needs services may receive such services at a county's option. ♦ For those receiving aid, grants will be based on family size according to the January 1, 1997 grant levels. However, all income disregards will be eliminated, and recipients will be allowed . . . . . .�. . to keep a percentage of their earnings. ♦ As a further incentive to move into the workforce, grants will be reduced by 15 percent for any The Governors family with an able-bodied adult remaining on aid longer than six months. redesign ; ♦ Federal law provides for hardship exemptions from the time limits. These exemptions will be proposal is provided to non-needy caretakers and families with a severely disabled parent or child. based on the ♦ Full cooperation in all child support requirements will be expected as a condition of eligibility, premise that and paternity must be established in order for the adult to be included in the grant. In addition, all child support collected will be passed to the custodial parent, and will reduce grants on a anyjob is ; dollar-for-dollar basis as unearned income. rybetter than ; ♦ The Governor's proposal includes a noncash safety net program for children. This safety net j nojob. provides for children whose families have exhausted their time limits. The level of aid in this program is based on the number of children aided,with no adults included in the benefits. ♦ To further enhance the State's ongoing welfare fraud prevention efforts,the Governor's proposal O . . . . . establishes a "one strike and you're off' penalty for individuals found to have committed inten- tional fraud. This penalty results in permanent ineligibility for welfare benefits in California. ♦ Legal immigrants who arrived in the United States before August 22, 1996, will continue to be eligible for aid. Those arriving after that date are not eligible for aid for five years, consistent with federal law. c: i; Mandatory Work Requirements I �i The Governor's redesign proposal is based on the premise that any job is better than no job. Work experience provides valuable job skills such as maintaining a schedule, organizing one's activities efficiently,working in a group and maintaining working relationships with coworkers. These skills j provide a valuable basis for obtaining the kind of employment which allows a family to become self-sufficient. In addition, work experience reduces a family's dependence on public support, c and, perhaps most importantly, provides a positive role model for children. ♦ One-parent families will be required to participate in work or approved job training for 32 hours per week. Two-parent families will be required to participate in these approved activities for 35 hours per week. i ,l ♦ Allowable activities include subsidized or unsubsidized employment, limited job club/job search activities, adult education, completion of high school or its equivalent (for teenage �Iwgln h" r a I. 1 F 0 R N I A G 0 V F. R N 0 R 5 E U D—G E T S U M M A R Y 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 _ REFORMING CALIFORNIA"S WELFARE SYST parents), vocational employment training, job development, and community service, but lim- ited to no more than six months. ♦ Non-needy caretakers, families with a severely disabled parent or child, or a single person with a child under 12 weeks old are exempt from work requirements. ; ♦ Resources in the California Community Colleges will be expanded. The California Community Colleges, along with the Employment Development Department and the Department of Educa- tion, will increase assistance to people moving from welfare to work. In order to receive state ; block grant funds, county plans will be required to demonstrate mechanisms for coordination at the local level among agencies funded through different sources. Child Care ; . . . . . . . . . . . . For many families now on welfare, work may not be possible without adequate child care. The The provision provision of child care is a critical component of the Governor's proposal. Federal welfare reform changes child care by moving existing child care funding into a separate block grant and increas- of child care is ing the available level of support. • acritical ♦ Federal child care funds will be used for child care needs of individuals moving from welfare to component of work, as well as to help prevent individuals from going on aid. Funds will also be used to plan the Governor's for expanded center-based care. proposal. ♦ The Departments of Education and Social Services, along with county welfare directors, are developing appropriate mechanisms to ensure that these needs are met and that adequate coordination between agencies is provided. . . . . . .®. . . . . . Budget Proposals ; A significant fiscal change associated with welfare reform is the conversion of the current reim- bursement system into a federal block grant to states. California will receive a block grant of $3.7 billion. Another change is the establishment of a state maintenance-of-effort requirement. State and local governments combined must spend at least$2.9 billion and comply with federal requirements to receive the full federal amount. If federal work participation requirements are met, state and local governments combined may decrease their spending level to $2.7 billion and still receive the full federal funding amount. In 1995, the base year the federal government used to calculate California's block grant amount, the State had higher welfare caseloads and expenditures than at present. As a result, the State will receive an additional $334 million in federal funds in 1996-97 and $486 million in 1997-98. This amount of federal funding is available under the block grant when compared to the amount that would have been available under the former AFDC program, assuming a "current law" base i.e., authorizations in current State law will be permanently enacted. The Governor's proposal includes various policy reforms and revisions resulting in additional net savings. This additional federal funding, combined with savings from continuing and proposed State reforms, can be invested in welfare employment and training programs, held in reserve for future needs, transferred to other federal block grant programs such as Title XX social services, or taken as a savings against welfare expenditures. The Governor's Budget proposes a balanced approach to using the available savings: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �` C A L I F O R N I A G O V E R N O R ' S B U D G E T S U M M A R Y 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 '� B FORMING CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE SYSTEM ♦ $79.6 million will be invested in employment programs and other services, including federally required work assessments, for recipients. This amount will assist the State in achieving its federal work activity participation targets in the coming year. ♦ $60 million will be added to the GAIN Program in both 1996-97 and 1997-98. Additionally, the Budget proposes that any unspent 1996-97 GAIN funding be made available to counties in 1997-98. • ♦ $110.1 million will be used for discretionary program expenditures and changes required to comply with federal reforms, including: $74.6 million to continue the monthly $50 child • support disregard with state funds only(including$33.9 million in 1996-97); $25.9 million for child support costs, and; $9.6 million to provide eligibility for children discontinued from the Federal Supplemental Security Income Program. M • ♦ $33.2 million will be used to comply with federal welfare reform reporting requirements by developing required computer case tracking and monitoring systems. ' ♦ $79.4 million will be used for training of county welfare staff, since their role will change from • eligibility determination to case management. ♦ $140.9 million will be allocated to counties to replace federal emergency assistance funding, which counties could formerly claim for juvenile probation placement costs. ♦ $274 million will be reduced from the program in 1996-97 and $288.1 million in 1997-98, and made available for other high-priority General Fund needs. Additionally, $60.6 million savings in 1996-97 and $289 million savings in 1997-98 result from grant reductions and other statutory changes previously approved by the Legislature.The Budget assumes permanent continuation of the 4.9-percent statewide grant reduction,which would sunset October 31, 1997. Restoration of • this grant reduction on November 1, 1997,would cost$158.3 million in 1997-98. r '3 I� _ i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ". C A L I F O R N I A G O V E R N O R S B U D G E T -S U M M A R Y 1 9 9 7 - 9 8 d L (/ s tfl'd �HlOi CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department DATE: Jaauary 13, 1997 TO: S%=Visarr Jim Rogers FROft John Cullen, Director e: Phil Batchelor SU JECT: Your Request re Relinquishmen of Children of Welfare Recipients for Adoption in Governor Wilson's Welfare Reform Proposal bast week,the Gov==puWI c1y revealed a number of details related to his proposed Welfare Reform Program. Included in &is package is language that requires tW mothers receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Pamilims(TANF)be encouraged to consicler relinquishing their children for adoption as an altemative.to weifine. We find this proposal to be both ethically unconscionable and fiscally shorteoted. Any reguladon that would impost;upon a moth a reQu=aent to consider adoption solely because of poverty is unacceptable and anti family. Studies in this State have shown that the average length a household curter dy receives AFDC is approximately two years. It makes little sense to permanently sever a parental relationship over what is freque dy a temporary, situation Problem. Poverty is pot an ink of the quality of parenting a child receives. Many children raised in poor and low income funnies go on to be highly educated and succesMd. Their modws and fathers were able to nurture them, to hold them and comfort them when they hurt, to applaud them when they suu:veed, to encourage their achievement in school, and to assist them in developing health self-esteem. Bone of this requn=a mukUe-dau income. To ev= saggcst that these families should be disrupted because of paverty ignores the cm importance of 'fsmilp". . This specific proposal is also-fiscally irreg mstible. It presupposes that there are many families in our communities who are ready to adopt and will assume full financial raponsWity for the children. If this were the cue, there would not be the need to actively and constantly recruit adoptive families for ch idtpi already in the child welfare system as a result of abuse and neglect. Across the Stale, there are many children of all ages and races who need permanent families and there is a dcuffi..of families waiting for them. If even a percentage of ft,children in households receiving TATV were relinquished, there is little doubt that they would have to be cared for in group facilities, whether we call them JAN-13-1997 13:57 ' PROM SOCIAL SERVICE DE 1. TO 63429 P.02 Supervisor Jim Rogers January 13, 1997 Page 2 orphanages or group homes. Their cost of care would be in excess of$3,000/month as opposed to the few hundred a month their parents receive. The pubhe would be fumed to assu=this additional financial obligation until an adoptive famsfly could be located and prepared. /yl(lq don is a good ffi tg. It is a-pm-family"program. It afford.$the opp0ltcmity for child= whose birth parents truly cannot care for these to be raised in a k ving home. It should be reserved for child=Who have been neglected and/or abused by their birth fam0,im or whose parents recognim their own b ability to raise a child, The Governor's or7ginal Adoption initiative,passed into law last year,positively promotca adop n for thee ehddrea. This should remain the focus of government's role in adoption. JBC:sjb RECEIVED 1/21/97 JAN 2 11997 Board Of Supervisors CLERK BOARD OF SU -ORS Contra Costa County CONTRA CC.--:,.c� R h ti (�h Any suggestions you send to Governor Wilson on Welfare reform should include the following: ''' The state should assist the county in developing a policy that would require that in order to receive taxpayer support all welfare recipients must immediately work towards independence and contribute to society. The program should include: Develop a baby-sitting coop where all welfare recipients must spend 2 days a week taking care of at least two other recipients children. This would give each recipient 4 days a week without their children to do the following required activities: Do community service such as litter or graffiti removal_. Serve as an unpaid intern for business or government. Improve job skills. Accepting a minimum wage job should not result in loss of basic medical care for the children. Fathers should be required to participate in all the baby-sitting and community service programs. Drug testing and treatment should be required where appropriate. I am available to assist you or county staff in developing details. Sincerely, Pete Williams 237 Ivy Drive Orinda, CA 94563 Phone 510-376-2715 e-mail PETEPATWMS@AOL.COM