Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04021996 - D4 F&HS-06 ro: BOARD•,OF SUPERVISORS SEL Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa DATE:. March 25, 1996 County TT9 COUNT STATUS REPORT ON THE GENERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND SUBJECT: PROPOSED WORKSHOP WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON FUTURE GENERAL ASSISTANCE POLICY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INVITE the Social Service Director to make a brief presentation to the Board of Supervisors on the status of the General Assistance Program in Contra Costa County in conjunction with the presentation of this report. 2. REQUEST the Social Service Director to make a presentation to the City/County Relations Committee on May 3, 1996 on the General Assistance' Program to emphasize to city councilpersons the challenges which face this County and its cities in terms of the General Assistance Program, particularly in light of possible impacts from Federal and State welfare reform proposals. 3. REQUEST the Social Service Director to make a very brief presentation to the Mayors' Conference on May 4, 1996 and provide appropriate handouts to point out the potential challenges which we all face in addressing the social needs of our residents. 4. REQUEST the Social Service Director to make a presentation to the Public Managers' Association on the General Assistance Program to emphasize the fiscal and programmatic impact on residents of cities from the pending welfare reform proposals. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BARD C M I T E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Mkgn_�.(;A I I I N I P R ITM ACTION OF BOARD ON- Afro 9, 1 AAF APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that recommendations 1 through 7 are APPROVED and a Workshop on the General Assistance Program is set for the Board of Supervisors' meeting on May 21, 1996, at 6 p.m. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT #5 ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED April 29 1c)96 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY 5. CONSIDER scheduling a Workshop before the Board on the future of the General Assistance Program so the Board can receive staff presentations and provide policy guidance on the goals and objectives of the General Assistance Program that the Board of Supervisors expects the Social Service Director to address. 6. As part of the Workshop before the Board, REQUEST the Social Service Director to comment on the Board's authority to adopt General Assistance standards and the authority of the Social Service Director to develop the procedures for implementation of the General Assistance program. 7. DIRECT the Social Service Director to report to the Family and Human Services Committee on the General Assistance Program practices which address the Board's goals and objectives approximately 60 days after the Workshop with the Board of Supervisors suggested above. BACKGROUND: The above recommendations result from our Committee meeting of March 25, 1996 with the Social Service Director and others regarding the General Assistance Program. County Administrator Social Service Director Health Services Director County Counsel Phil Bertenthal, Legal Services Foundation Sara Hoffman, CAO's Office -2- D). q SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATE: March 25, 1996 TO: Mark De Saulnier and Jeff Smith cc: Claude Van Marter Family and Human Services Committee FROM: John Cullen Social Service Director SUBJECT: General Assistance Report The purpose of this report is to provide the FHS with an overview of the status of the General Assistance program and begin discussions to define our vision for the future. Today, I will be discussing General Assistance in Contra Costa County and presenting: • a general review of our current program; • a review of the 1995 General Assistance program changes and their impact; • a description of our General Assistance clients; • an identification of federal and state public policy trends and their impacts on GA; and • some thoughts on program improvements. Most importantly, following a presentation of this information, I would like to begin soliciting your ideas on suggestions for improving our GA program. Gen 9c (New 3/86) i D.q 1. Impact of the 1995 General Assistance Policy Changes The Social Service Department has worked to implement the policy changes approved by the Board this fiscal year. Changes adopted in Fiscal year 1995 and their financial impact are outlined below. 1. 15 day residency requirement -- implementation started August 1, 1995 All applicants for GA must now be able to verify that they have been residents of CCC for at least 15 days before aid can be granted. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that aid is paid to residents of Contra Costa County versus transient populations. Impact: The average number of applicants seen per month has decreased. For example, in the Martinez district the number decreased from 234 in December, 1994 to 135 in December, 1995. We believe that the reduction is due in part to the change in policy. For those who do apply, more than 95% of applicants have no problem establishing residency. The policy, intended to discourage transients, will save approximately $75,000 per year. 2. Sanction periods for failure or refusal to comply with program requirements-- implementation started August 1, 1995 Durational sanctions for failure or refusal to comply with program requirements have been increased from: warning, one month, three months, six months; to: warning, two months, four months, six months. The purpose of this policy is to provide incentive for recipients to cooperate and comply with requirements, and to reduce the administrative costs of processing many frequent restorations of aid. Impact: The change results in expenditure reduction as there is an additional month sanction for all second and third instances of program noncompliance. For example, in January, 1996, 185 cases being sanctioned for two months would have been sanctioned for only one month under the prior policy; 83 four month sanctions would have been for 3 months. From September through January,1996, $397,502 in expenditure reduction has been realized because of, the new sanction policies. 3. Vendor Pay for Housing -- implementation started October 1, 1995 All housing is paid by direct payment to the recipient's landlord in order to ensure that housing expenses are paid. As of February 29, 1996, 2173 recipients have returned the vendor pay forms, and vendor payments are being issued. This represents two-thirds of the total caseload utilizing vendor payments for shelter. It is also interesting to note that the number of vendor payments has steadily increased since October. This may be the result of more people finding housing due to this financial incentive. Impact: An estimated $1,200,000 in annual expenditure reduction will be realized where clients voluntarily have declined vendor payment for housing. 4. Services and Grants for Homeless Recipients -- implementation started October 1, 1995 All homeless applicants and recipients are offered referral to public and private shelter beds. This is to encourage homeless GA applicants and recipients to take shelter and have the opportunity to benefit from a structured care program which can lead to permanent housing. Clients who do not accept shelter are not eligible to receive the shelter portion of the grant ($158). Shelter beds at the two county sponsored shelters and other public and private shelters are offered, if available, to all applicants at the time of the GA intake appointment. General Assistance recipients who were homeless at the time of this policy change were given appointments on a flow basis during the period October through December for the purpose of exploring available shelter. Impact: For the month of February, 1996, 88 General Assistance recipients stayed at the two county-sponsored shelters; 405 have declined referrals to available shelter beds. In February, 58 recipients would have accepted a shelter bed if one were available; these individuals report to the District office weekly to determine the availability of a bed. Additionally, an unknown number of formerly homeless recipients have secured permanent housing. The total number of recipients who state that they are homeless has decreased from 31% to 17% of the total caseload since October, 1995. The new policy provides a financial incentive to accept shelter. Homeless clients who receive or choose not to accept shelter a?ternatives result in projected annual expenditure reductions of approximately $1,000,000. In response to the FHSC's questions regarding the impact on people that exceed the 90 day shelter time limit, we have been advised that only 5 current GA recipients now at the shelters have exceeded the ninety day length of stay without finding alternative housing. The shelter case management staff are utilizing their time with the recipient on locating permanent housing, including utilizing the General Assistance Housing Allowance for moving in costs. In the event that a recipient and the case manager are not able to secure permanent March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 2 J. housing during the three month shelter stay, and it is documented that there are no other alternatives for the recipient, the recipient will be eligible for the maximum GA grant. 5. Standards of Assistance for Recipients Living with Related Persons -- Implemented effective September 1 for applicants and October 1 for recipients Grants for those recipients who reside with certain related persons were reduced based on a multiple person standard of assistance. On September 14, 1995, a lawsuit, Taylor v CCC was filed in Superior court challenging the county's family shared housing standards. Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation are the attorneys for the plaintiff. On October 10, 1995 the county was enjoined from using this standard of assistance. Grants have been recomputed and supplements issued'. At the December 8, 1995 hearing in Superior Court, a decision was rendered in the plaintiff's favor. The county has appealed the decision. Impact: The potential impact of implementing this standard of assistance would have been approximately $ 1,000,000. 6. Automated Hearings -- Implementation started.November 1, 1995. The County has automated the hearing process in order to assure that every recipient facing certain negative actions will have an opportunity for a timely fair hearing and decision, thus ensuring equitable treatment and eliminating the need for aid-paid-pending a decision. All "Notices of Failure to Comply" which propose discontinuance and sanction for noncompliance with program requirements contain prescheduled hearing dates and times. Hearings are scheduled no sooner than seventeen days following the date of the notice, and prior to the effective date of the proposed action. The hearing appointments are restated on the "Notice of Action", which is sent ten days later, if the recipient has not resolved the issue. Impact: Clients are being scheduled for hearings more quickly, and decisions are made timely. There is very limited aid-paid-pending for automatically scheduled hearings. Client-requested hearings have been reduced by two- thirds. Aid-paid-pending now averages about $18,000 per month, as compared to $80,000 per month prior to the policy change. March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 3 Financial Summary The data presented in this report is based on information through February, 1996 only. A projection based on this data would result in a $9.5 to $10.2 million expenditure for this fiscal year. This is down from $13 million for Fiscal Year 1994/95. However, a straight line projection is not extremely accurate due to seasonal trends and any unforeseen changes which may impact the General Assistance population. The threat of migration from adjoining counties has not been resolved. Alameda County won their appeal of the denial of mandate relief and lowered their maximum grant to $221 per month, effective March 1, 1996. However, they have again been restrained from implementing this new grant level pending another hearing. They also continue to implement a mandatory in-kind program for homeless, and vendor pay for housing. Solano County has announced their intention to apply for mandate relief. These actions may impact our local program. The program costs are being carefully monitored to evaluate compliance with budget. I will continue to meet with the CAO and offer recommendations should I believe that the program will exceed budget by year's end. March 25, 1996 CA Status Report 4 2. General Assistance Clients In looking ahead and starting discussions on probable and possible GA program changes, we should start with a review of our current GA population. The "face" of the General Assistance recipient has changed over time. Once the purview of the middle- aged, single male, GA increasingly serves numbers of women and young people. In the summer of 1995, Contra Costa General Assistance applicants participated in a study conducted by the Research Response Team of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium (BASSC), Center for Social Services Research, School of Social Work, University of California, Berkeley. The purpose of the study was to document certain demographic information not routinely available. The survey also included needs assessment information as well, so that the Social Service Department may have data necessary for planning and developing programs which will bes. serve GA recipients. The BASSC Report, copies of which have been distributed under separate cover, Executive Summary attached, provide the following characteristic information on the GA population: "The GA population of Contra Costa County is not a homogeneous group but one that is quite diverse. Even though the overwhelming majority are single persons, the population varies in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, work experience, and any many other characteristics. The study shows that while men made up a large percentage of the GA caseload, the number of women was substantial. In this study, the percentage of males interviewed and granted the benefit was 56% and the percentage of females was 24%. Persons of all ethnic and racial backgrounds are recipients of GA. The majority of grantees interviewed in this study were Caucasian (43.9%) and African American (38.6%). GA recipients in Contra Costa County are dispersed among different age groups. The largest number fall within the age range of 26 to 35. The mean age of those interviewed and granted the benefit was 33.8 years. The study found the majority of GA recipients interviewed in Contra Costa County were males (56%), Caucasians (44%), 35 years old and younger (59%), single (96%) educated (79% have a high school degree or above, and are applying for GA for the first time (61%). Furthermore, most have lived in the county for over 10 years (56%), have been unemployed for less than one year (57%), were looking for work (77%), and had not received any social services in the past six months (64%). This study found that the large majority of the recipients (76.5%) were unemployed and looking for work and that 14% of those interviewed and granted GA self-identified as disabled/unable to work. �' March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 5 Most of those interviewed and subsequently granted the benefit indicated that in order to become more self-sufficient, the most important service they need is employment services (including job training and placement). In addition, these GA recipients indicated the need for affordable housing, financial assistance (including rental assistance), health services, and food programs. The most often cited reason for applying for GA was economic in nature, including 'no other resources available' and job loss." 3. Public Policy Trends Federal and State Welfare Reform Trends The most critical issue facing General Assistance programs right now is the potential impact on GA of current federal and state proposals for welfare reform. When both of these entities discuss welfare reform, they usually mean revising the AFDC, SSI, Refugee Assistance, Medicaid, and other nationallstate programs which in turn escort people into or away from GA. Proposed federal and state welfare program changes, such as limiting AFDC to two years, denying AFDC to teen parents and their children or to children born while the family is on aid, restrictions on immigrants, eliminating,or restricting SSI benefits for alcohol and drug addicts, and increasing the SSI ineligibility for sponsored aliens from three to five years, will shift more clients with different needs to GA.. Utilizing a model developed by Sacramento County, the major welfare reform proposed in Washington and our Governor's redesign, would possibly shift up to 16,155 people and $ 36,113,052 to our GA program. While not a Federal or State issue, the threat of migration from adjoining counties continues to be very real, due in part to the granting of mandate relief to other Northern California counties. We will need to continue to monitor this trend. Legislative Changes/Policy Trends A. A number of specific California State legislative proposals are being circulated which will directly impact a county General Assistance program. One new law, already chaptered and effective January 1, 1997 is SB681. Some of the highlights of the provisions of this law are: 1) Adds to the definition of the standard of aid, which already includes the value of in- kind aid, the right of the Board of Supervisors to include the " monthly actuarial value of up to $40 per month of medical care." It also adds that this section "is not intended I March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 6 )I D.q to either limit or expand the extent of the duty of counties to provide health care." Evaluation: This would support the proposal the Department made to the Board last year to reduce the grant paid to the client in recogn°tion of health care provided under the Basic Adult Care program, to which GA recipients are eligible. At that time, the Board approved the concept, but decided to delay the adoption of this provision pending the outcome of the State Supreme Court hearing in the Gardner v LA County case. Impact on CC: If we implement this provision, using the maximum deduction allowed ($40 per month), and our current caseload of @3200, the annual savings will be $1.5 million. 2) Reinstates the standard of aid for recipients who share housing with one or more unrelated or non-legally responsible persons. Evaluation: This provision was in the W& I Code from November 1, 1992 through December 31, 1994, and was part of our program. When the "sun set' on the section, we deleted it from our program. The Board expressed interest in this section last year, and Contra Costa lobbied to have it reinstated. Impact on CC: This reduction will apply to a significant percentage of our caseload -- probably 60% or more. It apparently will also eliminate the need to pursue the appeal of the Taylor v CCC Superior Court decision. (The Taylor case challenged our right to reduce the grants of those who live with certain, non-responsible relatives. If we are to reduce the grants of all who live with others, it will result in greater savings, rendering the "relative budgeting" issue moot.) 3) Prohibits an employable recipient from receiving aid for more than three months in any 12-month period: 1) beginning with aid paid in January 1, 1997; and 2) if the individual has been offered an opportunity to attend job skills or job training sessions. Evaluation: Appears to permit counties to discontinue and deny GA to employables when they have received GA for any three months within any 12-month period, effective March 31, 1997. Impact on CC: Fifty percent of our GA caseload is employable. 4) Specifies that counties may provide aid either by cash assistance, in-kind aid, two- party payments, voucher payments, or a check to the provider of services. Counties may provide more than one method of aid to an individual recipient. Evaluation: We currently provide GA in the forms of cash, vouchers, in-kind (shelter March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 7 program) and vendor payments (for housing, and some special needs). Impact on CC: Additional use of vendor/voucher payments could result in additional programmatic savings as was experienced with housing payments. 5) Adds two conditions relating to substance abuse: 9) "counties may require adult applicants and recipients to undergo screening for substance abuse when it is determined by the county that there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an individual is dependent upon illegal drugs or alcohol", and 2) counties may require as a condition of aid reasonable participation in substance abuse treatment programs for persons screened and professionally evaluated to be in need of treatment, if the services are actually available at no charge to the recipient" Impact on CC: Currently we screen every General Assistance applicant for chemical dependency, using the SASSI instrument. Those whose test results indicate possible chemically dependency are referred for an assessment by an independent counselor for confirmation. If we are able to screen only those persons for whom we have some documented reasonable suspicion of possible substance abuse, or even those persons who exhibit behaviors consistent with chemical dependency, our ability to screen will be curtailed. There will be no impact on our treatment program participation requirement. However, the number of participants could be significantly reduced. 6) Although not new in this Bill, the sun is due to set on three important sections of the W& I Code effective January 1, 1997 (which, ironically, is the implementation date for the changes.) All three of these provisions are found in Contra Costa's regulations. a) The residency requirement was just added to our program and implemented effective August 1, 1995, and is expected to result in a small annual savings. More importantly, perhaps, is the effect this regulation has on persons who are transient or who are tempted to migrate from other counties. We have noticed a decline in the number of homeless applicants new to the county, particularly in the Martinez office, which does tend to support the belief that a significant number of transients are being discouraged from applying for GA here. . b) Sanctions for employable persons are allowed for failure to participate in job training programs. This sanction, while in our regulations, currently has little or no impact on our program. March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 8 C) Sanctions for recipients are allowed for failure or refusal without good cause to follow program requirements.These sanctions are an important feature in our ability to effectively administer our GA program. They reinforce program requirements and the recipient's responsibility to comply with those requirements. B. Federal changes to the Social Security regulations pertaining to eligibility for SSI/SSP for those persons whose disability is drug or alcohol related will impact General Assistance programs within the next two years. In 1995, time-limits were implemented, with a maximum eligibility period of thirty-six months for these recipients. At the end of the three years, these persons will be potentially eligible to GA. Social Security data indicates that there are approximately 1100 such persons in Contra Costa County. If all these persons go to GA, this could increase our obligation by 30%. C. The Beno court judgment and federal waivers guide the state's ability to reduce AFDC grants for those persons who are employable. The county's ability to make corresponding reductions in GA grants is also guided by this judgment. In 1991, the State adopted language permitting the counties to set the GA standard of aid at 62% of the Federal poverty guideline, as adjusted annually by the State legislature for AFDC. Recent Beno judgments allow the state to reduce the employable portion of the AFDC caseload by 2.3%. Permissible reductions would impact 50% of our GA caseload -- the employables -- and would result in expenditure reductions of approximately $130,000 per year. 4. Future Thoughts regarding General Assistance In preparing to address the coming Federal and State policy changes, and meet the needs and characteristics of our GA population, we need to begin to discuss local policy changes. The following are some considerations for activity which could be added or expanded: Homeless Services ► Participate in the county-wide Homeless Task Force, which is attempting to assemble a service delivery system which will result in a county-wide approach to serve the homeless population, including homeless GA recipients. ► Assist homeless applicants to locate temporary, emergency shelter ► Work with shelter case management staff to ensure that securing permanent housing is a primary goal of the case management plan March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 9 . y ► Provide Employment Services, Substance Abuse Treatment, and SSI Advocacy services, as appropriate, for each GA recipient residing at a shelter, freeing up the shelter staff to focus on assisting the client to obtain housing ► Provide General Assistance Housing Assistance funds with which the recipient can meet "moving in" expenses. ► Provide shelter staff with training on GA regulations, including the availability and use of GA Housing Assistance ► Participate in the regional Bay Area Homeless Alliance, a group in the process of submitting a proposal to HUD for the design of a regional data base for the homeless. This data base will be accessible to homeless GA clients to assist them with their shelter and employment needs. ► Others??? Employment Services ► Expect all applicants who self-declare as employable to complete an applicant job search, with the goal of moving applicants into work before they need monetary assistance. Next year we anticipate allowing staff more time to supervise and assist job search. ► Offer a job seeking skills workshop to all employable clients to assist them to successfully obtain employment. ► Operate a workfare program to provide work experience in job-related skills. Currently 50% of the employables are available for --and healthy enough for -- workfare. Most of these clients perform job search as well. ► Develop short-term training for GA employables. We anticipate that those who complete training will be directly referred to the job workshop for assistance obtaining employment in their field. ► Expand the current Income Disregard program, to encourage employables to accept part-time or lower-paid jobs as a first step toward full-time employment which will allow for self-sufficiency. ► Expand the SSI Advocacy Program. With changes in Social Security law, the GA roles may swell with SSI recipients who are on a time limit. Advocates are an effective means to help GA recipients obtain other benefits for which they are eligible. We anticipate using advocate staff to help refine our clients' March 25, 1996 GA Status Report 10 employable and unemployable status in order to allow for earlier intervention and earlier SSI granting. ► Participate in city-, county- and regional-wide cGrnmittees which have been created to assist county residents to become employed, e.g. CCC PIC, RichmondWorks, etc ► Others??? March 25, 1996 GQ Status Report 11 Ba Area / Social Services bnsortium Counties Alameda Contra Costa Humboldtoldt dt General Assistance Marin Client Demographics Study Mendocino Monterey in Naha Contra Costa County San Benito San Francisca San Mateo Santa Clara Santa cru: Prepared by Solan Sonoma Bay Area Social Services Consortium Universities Center for Social Services Research Sacramento state School of Social Welfare San Francisco State University of California, Berkeley San tort•State Unita rsity of California.Berkelcu Michael J. Austin, Ph.D. -Principal Investigator Sheryl Goldberg, Ph.D. -Project Director Foundations Janelle Cavanagh-Research Assistant The Zellerhach Melissa Lim-Research Assistant Family Fund Jill Duerr Bernick, Ph.D. - Consultant for Contra Costa County Social Service Department John Cullen, Director John Lee, General Assistance Division Manager January 1996 Unnrralu of Ca1d"rnia'n B,ykelc u • Sehta11 o(S(xia(V,.'el(aw i BASSC 1 120 Hardao4 H,4 B.•rk;,,v CA 94720 • Fa,510-643-6126 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In 1995,the Contra Costa County Social Service Department requested that the Research Response Team of the Bay Area Social Services Consortium(BASSC)of the Center for Social Services Research at the School of Social Welfare, University of California,Berkeley assist with conducting a demographic study of the General Assistance(GA) population in the county. The purpose of the research was to document certain demographic information not routinely available so that the Social Service Department may have data necessary for planning and developing programs which would'best serve both General Assistance recipients and the larger Contra Costa County population. The research study focuses upon a subset of 458 persons who applied for General Assistance benefits at the four intake sites in the county over a four-week period during the Summer of 1995. This research presents a snapshot or point in time description of the demographic characteristics of GA applicants and recipients living in Contra Costa County. GENERAL ASSISTANCE IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Even though General Assistance is mandated under State Welfare Institutions Code 17000,it is funded entirely by the county through General Fund dollars. GA is regarded as a short-term program designed to meet the minimum needs of unemployed/disabled persons and to instill self- sufficiency for those who are employable. The goal of Contra Costa County's GA program is self-sufficiency. To assist recipients to meet this goal,the Social Service Department: • provides employable clients with services to assist them with obtaining self sufficiency through employment;and • provides unemployable clients with services to assist them with obtaining Supplemental Security Income(SSI). RESEARCH FINDINGS-IN THEIR OWN VIEWS PROFILE OF GENERAL ASSISTANCE APPLICANTS Researchers interviewed 458 persons applying for General Assistance during a four week period in the Summer of 1995. The following are the self declared reports of these 458 persons. ii D,q )emographics of GA Applicants Applicants were interviewed at the Richmond intake site(46.3%),Martinez intake site (25.5%), Antioch intake site(24.2%), and Hercules intake site(3.9%). Approximately two-thirds(61.6%)of those applying for General Assistance were male; slightly more than one-third (38.4%)were female. While the overall ethnic mix varies by location, the study population included: 41.8% African American, 38.7%Caucasian, 8.8% Hispanic, 6.8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.8% Native American, and 2.2% Other. The mean age of the GA applicants interviewed was 33.4 years(standard deviation= 10.7). • Those who indicated either single, divorced, separated, or widowed totaled 95.4%, and (4.6%)were presently man ied/coupled. • Although one-fifth of the respondents(20.7%) did not complete high school,the majority (51.1%)reported receiving their high school diploma or GED. Over one-quarter(28.1%) of the GA applicants interviewed indicated that they had vocational training(4.6%),taken undergraduate courses(18.9%), or completed an undergraduate(4.2%) or graduate degree(.4%). • Slightly more than one-tenth(13.3%)reported being a U.S. Veteran;the majority of these persons having served in the Army(57.4%),Navy(21.3%), or Marines(14.8%). Residency Status • A large majority(93.6%)of respondents reported being U.S. Citizens. All of those who were not citizens(n=27) stated that they were legally documented. • Over one-third(35.5%)of the total sample of GA applicants reported living in the City of Richmond, 11.91/6 said they lived in Concord, 10.1%in Antioch,9%in Pittsburg, 7.9% in Martinez, and 7%in San Pablo. • Over half(56.9%) of the GA applicants interviewed are long term residents of Contra Costa County,having lived there for 10 years or more. In the past six months, only 9.7% have relocated to the county. Most stated that the reason for their move was to make a "new start"(47.8%). Housing Status • One-third(33.7%)of those interviewed self identified as homeless. Slightly less than one-. third(29.1%)of the respondents indicated that they lived in an apartment and(28.4%) lived in a house. Ten percent lived in public housing or received Section 8 housing iii vouchers. Nearly half(44.9%)reported that they lived alone. Employment History/Income Sources * Over three-quarters(77.1%)of persons applying for GA benefits reported being unemployed and looking for work, 8.2%were unemployed (=looking for work), and 7.8%were disabled/unable to work. Applicants interviewed who were employed(either full time, part time or occasionally)consisted of 5.3%of the sample. • Of the unemployed,nearly one-quarter(22.1%)indicated being without a job for about six months to one year. Those who had never been employed represented 6.1%of the sample. Slightly less than one-tenth(9.6%)have not been working for more than five years. * The most frequently reported reasons for unemployment were: 1)employment ended (33.1%), 2)physical/mental health issues(17.8%), and 3)a variety of other reasons (35.9%) [which included"recently released from jail,""can't find work/not enough work,""going to school,"and"language barriers]." • When applicants were queried about their sources of income in the past six months, over one-third(37.7%) stated that they received Food Stamps,37%had full/part time work, and 34.7%reported receiving assistance from relatives. One-fifth(20.8%)of respondents were reapplicants and reported receiving General Assistance benefits within the past six months. * A small percentage(16.4%)of the General Assistance applicants had applied for Supplemental Security Income(SSI). Of these(n=72),nearly half(47.2°/x)had an application pending, 34.7%had their application denied and took no further action,and 11.1%had their application on appeal. Social Services • Although the majority(63%)of GA applicants reported they did not receive any social services, 15.4%indicated receiving food/meal services in the past six months, 13.8%used health services, and 9.2%received employment services. • A substantial percentage of GA applicants had a recent history of incarceration. Nearly one-third(32°l0)of the respondents stated that they had been in jail in the past two years. Of these, 39.6%had committed a felony and nearly half(47.1%)were on probation or parole. • Close to one-fifth(19.5%)of those interviewed reported receiving in-patient or out- patient treatment for substance abuse,while slightly more than one-tenth(11.9010)reported receiving mental health in-patient or out-patient treatment. iv t ! • When respondents were asked about the most important services that could help them become more self sufficient,the five top service needs were: 1) employment (such as job training and placement) 55.8%, 2) affordable housing 43.6%, 3)financial assistance 41.4%, 4) health services 32.71/o, and 5) food programs 26,4%. Applicants' General Assistance History • While the most common response to a question about the reasons for applying for General Assistance benefits was"no resources available"(47,8%), 28.9% said"job loss,"and 19.3% reported"other"reasons than those listed on the survey(including"recently released from jail,""can't find job or lack of work,""income while looking for work," "waiting for SSI,""need money while attending school,"and"recently relocated"). Only 10.2%of the 458 applicants interviewed had ever received GA benefits from another county. Half(51.4%) reported this was their first time applying for GA in Contra Costa County. • Of the respondents who had received GA in Contra Costa County(n=210), 390/a received the benefit for one to three months, 16.7%received the benefit for four to six months, and nearly one-quarter(24.8%) collected GA for one to two years. PROFILE OF PERSONS GRANTED GENERAL ASSISTANCE Of the 458 General Assistance applicants interviewed over a four-week period during the Summer 1995,researchers were able to match 132 applicants(using the last four digits of their Social Security Numbers)who were granted the General Assistance benefit. Demographics of those Granted GA • Those granted the GA benefit were applicants at the following locations: Richmond (40.9%), Antioch(31.1%), and Martinez(28%). • More than half(56.1%)of those granted the benefit were male; 43.9%were female. • The ethnic mix was as follows: 38.6%African American;43.9%Caucasian; 8.3% Hispanic;4.5%Asian/Pacific Islander; 1.5%Native American; and 3% Other. • The mean age of recipients interviewed was 33.8 years(standard deviation= 10.4)with a range of 18 to 68. • Nearly all of the recipients interviewed(96.2%)were reportedly single(which includes single, divorced, separated,or widowed); only 3.2%were married/coupled. v �i • Less than one-quarter(2-1.2%) of those receiving GA had less than a high school education. Over half(52.3%)had received a high school diploma and one-quarter (26.5%)had continued schooling after high school. • Veterans represented 12.9% of this population; over half of whom served in the Army (64.7%). Residency Status • Nearly all(98.5%)of the persons granted GA were U.S. Citizens. Of the 1.5%, (n=2), who were not U.S. citizens, all stated that they did have legal documentation to be in the country. * The largest numbers of persons granted the benefit lived in the cities/towns of Richmond (31.8%), Antioch(13.6%), Concord(12.9°/x),Martinez(10.6%), and Pittsburg(10.61%). • Over half(56.1%)reported that they lived in Contra Costa County for over ten years. Twenty-two of the 132 respondents(15.2%)reported living in the county for six months or less. Of these respondents,the largest numbers had recently moved from Alameda County(n=7)or outside California(n=6). The most common reason given for relocating to Contra Costa County was to pursue a"new start"(61.9%). Housing Status • More than one-quarter of the recipients interviewed lived in a house(28.8%)or apartment (23.5%). Not quite one-tenth(7.6%)reported that they lived in public housing or Section 8 housing. Over one-third(37.1%) self identified as homeless(defined as living on the street, car,van, etc.). Close to half(45.5%)reported living alone. Employment History/Incomes Sources • More than three-quarters of the recipients(76.5%)stated that they were unemployed and looking for work; 5.3%indicated that they were unemployed,but=.looking for work. Over one-tenth(13.6%)stated that they were disabled and could not work. A small number(1.5%) stated that they were employed part-time or had"other" as their employment status. * Of those who were unemployed, more than half(59.3%)had been out of work for six months or longer, and one-quarter were out of work from zero to three months. A small percentage(5.5%)stated that they had never been employed. • The most common reason for unemployment was reported to be"other"reasons as chosen by 28.90/o. These reasons included recent incarceration,not finding work or not enough work, and being homeless. Nearly one-quarter of the respondents(23.41/o),were unemployed due to termination of their previous job. vi fr 1 • Less than one-fifth(18.9%)of those granted GA reported that they had applied for SSI JJJ benefits. Of those who did apply, 52%were still pending a formal decision, another 24% were denied SSI and did not take further action,and 16% had an application on appeal. • The most common source of income in the last six months was"assistance from relatives/friends,"which was chosen by 38.6%. Food Stamps and work were the second most common sources of income,each chosen by 37.1%. Over one-tenth(12.1%) reported that GA was a source of income that they had received. Social Services • Almost two-thuds(63.8%)of those granted GA stated that they had not received any social services in the last six months. Of those who indicated that they did receive some type of social service, 16.9% said they received some health services and 13.1%noted food/meal programs. About 6.9%of those interviewed reported getting employment services. [All GA recipients who are"employable"receive employment services.] • About one-thud(38.2%)of GA recipients reported that they spent time in jail within the past two years. Of those who were previously incarcerated, 34%stated that the crime they committed was a felony and 36%were still on parolelprobation at the time of the interview. • Regarding substance abuse treatment, 22.7% noted that they had received some form of treatment. About one-tenth(10.6%)indicated that they had received in-patient or out- patient mental health treatment in the past. More than half(59.l%)of those granted GA felt that employment services{job training and placement)was one of the most important services that could help them become more self-sufficient. Almost half(4701x)also chose affordable housing as a service that would assist them;43.9%chose financial assistance as another helpful resource. For 37.1%, having health services was an important service that would help them become more self- sufficient. About one-fifth of recipients each chose educational services(20.5%)and food programs(22%) as other services that would be beneficial. Recipients' GA History • The number one reason that was chosen to explain why they were applying for GA was the fact that they had"no other resources available,"with 51.1%citing this choice. Over one-quarter (26.5%) stated that a job loss caused them to apply for GA and 18.9% chose "other"as the reason they were applying. • About 9.9%of recipients reported that they had received GA benefits from another county. Of those who did receive GA somewhere else, 33.3%had received GA from Alameda County, 25%received GA from Solano County, and 8.3% received GA from various other counties(including San Francisco,Los Angeles, and Sonoma). vii • More than half(60.6%)of the recipients were first time applicants to the GA program in Contra Costa County. About one-quarter(24.2%)had applied one time previously and 8.3%had applied twice before for GA uenefits. For those who had previously received benefits in the county(n=51), 56.9%reported that the total length of time that they were on the program was one to three months. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The GA population in Contra Costa County is not a homogeneous group but one that is quite diverse. Even though the overwhelming majority are single persons, the population varies in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, work experience, and many other characteristics. The study shows that while men made up a large percentage of the GA caseload,the number of'women was substantial. In this study,the percentage of males interviewed and granted the benefit was 56% and the percentage of females was 44%. Persons of all ethnic and racial backgrounds are recipients of GA. The majority of grantees interviewed in this study were Caucasian(43.9%)and African American(38.6%). GA recipients in Contra Costa County are dispersed among different age groups. The largest number fall within the age range of 26 to 3 5. The mean age of those interviewed and granted the benefit was 33.8 years. This study found the majority of GA recipients interviewed in Contra Costa County were males (56%),Caucasians(44%), 35 years old and younger(590/6), single(960/6), educated(79%have a high school degree or above),and are applying for GA for the first time(61%). Furthermore, most have lived in the county for over 10 years(560/6),have been unemployed for less than one year(570/6),were looking for work(77%),and had not received any social services in the past six months(64%). This study found that the large majority of the recipients(76.5%)were unemployed and looking for work and that 14%of those interviewed and granted GA self-identified as disabled/unable to work. Most of those interviewed and subsequently granted the benefit indicated that in order to become more self-sufficient,the most important service they need is employment services(including job training and placement). In addition,these GA recipients indicated the need for affordable housing,financial assistance(including rental assistance),health services,and food programs. The most often cited reason for applying for GA was economic in nature, including"no other resources available" and job loss. viii I RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS The intent of this study is to provide the Contra Costa County Social Service Department with demographic and other data about the General Assistance population to assist with program management and policy decision-making that will best serve the GA population and the larger Contra Costa County community. The following recommendations are based on reports from the GA applicants/recipients interviewed in the Summer 1995 in addition to some of the existing literature on public assistance programs. Recommendation I: Policy and program development decisions should reflect the diversity of the General Assistance population. The General Assistance recipient population in Contra Costa County is diverse in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, education, work experience, and other background characteristics. It includes single adults, individuals waiting to receive SSI, mentally ill persons, substance abusers,veterans, parolees, and homeless persons, as reflected across the four intake sites in the county. Recommendation 2: Enhanced employment services are critical to training and building economic self-sufficiency in the GA population. One of the most important goals of the Contra Costa County GA program is "providing employable clients with services to assist them with obtaining self sufficiency through employment." Of those applicants granted the GA benefit, the majority(77%)indicated that they were unemployed and looking for work. Much assistance is needed to help GA recipients overcome serious barriers to employment. More than half(59%) of those granted the benefit had been unemployed for at least six months. Many explained that their employment had recently ended due to not enough work, or inadequate job skills and experience. Yet, only a small number(7%) reported using employment services over the last six months. [All GA recipients who are"employable" receive employment services.] Most (59%) of those interviewed and subsequently granted GA indicated that, in order to become more self-sufficient, they needed employment services (job training/placement services). Assistance is needed in expanding employment preparation or job skill training and placement services in addition to health care coverage,transportation, and other support services(e.g., substance abuse treatment)that will enable those on GA to get and retain jobs(Nichols and Porter, 1995). Rank(1994) makes the case that "jobs(that pay a living wage and provide reasonable benefits)are the most needed and most permanent solution to the poverty problem" (p. 188). The employment component of the GA program must continue to be developed with the assistance of the larger community. Enterprise development and job creation through new collaborative ventures could be expanded between the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. Community resources to assist the GA population in becoming more self-sufficient include: JTPA ix 4 � 1 (Job Training and Partnership Act), EDD (Employment Development Department), other vocational programs, drug and alcohol services, counseling services, health assessment and health access services, and shelter care. Recommendation 3: Collaboration is needed between programs in the county in order to more adequately support the GA program. Many applicants to GA have been involved with other components of the human services and criminal justice systems. A percentage have recently spent time in jail(32%) and are currently on probation and parole(47%), others are waiting for SSI approval (47% of those who applied), others have participated in mental health(12%) and/or substance abuse treatment(20%), and still others have recently had their AFDC benefits canceled(5%). Since the 1980's,the increased caseload and costs for GA have placed enormous burdens on other county funded services(Hofinann, 1995). The various programs/departments involved in the lives of many GA recipients need to collaborate and communicate to create a better system within existing fiscal constraints. There could be some restructuring on the county and other levels to promote a seamless service system with shared responsibility across programs/departments. Recommendation 4: Collaboration is needed among the local, regional, State and Federal governmental levels in order to more adequately support the GA program. The GA program is the "safety net" for persons displaced from one program or service system to another(e.g., SSI,AFDC,Refugee Assistance, corrections, and mental health programs)and for shifting costs from one level of government to another(namely from Federal and State to local government)(Moon and Schneiderman, 1995). Even though State and Federal policies and programs affect the local level, GA is a 100%local responsibility(Lum, 1995b). GA remains an unfunded mandate. A disproportionate burden is placed on counties for the administration and financing of GA and for creating new solutions to address the myriad of complex issues facing this population. Regional approaches are being considered to address some of the inequities in neighboring counties(namely Alameda and San Francisco). However,the responsibilities for funding this program must go beyond the county level to include State and Federal support. A fundamental restructuring of the governmental partnership of the program is needed. CONCLUSIONS There exist substantial concerns that prospective cuts in State/Federal assistance programs will further overburden Contra Costa County's GA program(Hofmann, 1995). Welfare reform at the State/Federal levels will potentially impact local GA programs. In addition to an increase in the number of people applying for GA,the new caseload will exhibit a changed demographic profile (e.g.,more low income families). Counties will need to keep abreast of the projected changes on the Federal/State levels and continue to reevaluate their GA programs and the services provided. x Counties like Contra Costa may likely be forced to create more stringent eligibility conditions, restrict benefits for specific groups, and reduce benefits levels. If retrenchment continues, it is important to realize that reductions in GA may result in increased costs in other areas (namely community-based services including shelters, mental health programs, law enforcement). It will take the collective efforts of political leaders; public, nonprofit, and private sector organizations, advocacy organizations; and the GA population to create more effective and affordable long-term solutions which address the multiple problems and complex needs of the diverse population that benefits from this assistance program of last resort. xi Table 19 Demographics of GA Recipients Total Characteristic (%) (n=132) Gender Female 43.9 Male 56.1 Race/Ethnicity BlacUAfrican American 38.6 White,Non-Hispanic 43.9 Hispanic 8.3 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.5 American Indian/Native Am. 1.5 Other 3.0 Age 25 rears old&younger 28.8 26-35 years old 30.3 36-45 years old 29.5 46-55 years old 10.6 56-70 years old .8 Mean age 33.8 Present Marital Status Single 65.2 Married/Coupled 3.8 Divorced. 18.9 Separated 10.6 Widowed 1.5 Level of Education Completed Below High School " 21.2 High School/GED 52.3 Vocational Training/Undergraduate 22.0 courses Undergraduate/Graduate Degree 4.5 49 Table 23 Reasons for Unemployment as Reported by GA Recipients Total *Reasons (%) (n=128) Other 28.9 Employment Ended 23.4 Physical/Mental Health 31,2 Issues Perm/Temp Disabled 18.8 Transportation Difficulties 11.7 Career change/lack of 8.6 skills Recently Relocated 9.4 Criminal Historc 4.7 Lack of Child Care 0.8 Lack of Documentation 0 *Percentages do not total 100% as respondents could mark more than one answer. » 52 Table 26 *Services to assist in becoming more self sufficient as reported by GA Recipients Total Service (%) (n=132) Employment Services 59.1 Affordable Housing 47.0 Financial Assistance 43.9 Health Services 37.1 Food Programs 22.0 Educational 20.5 Transportation 15.9 Substance Abuse 9.8 Child Care 8.3 Legal 7.6 Emergency Shelter 4.5 Personal Care 6.1 Mental Health 1.5 More information about 3.0 programs Other 0.8 *Percentages do not total 100% as respondents could mark more than one answer. 55 O 0 CO �,� CIS • n � • ,� o • '�', � � �D eco � � ° ° �' o � � � � � � o ° � o � � � � -� n � �D � � �� �d � o °��. n �• � � � � � � � � '� coo �' �r Q' n U,' � o o � � � �� � fi � N � n "a• �� � � � � cn Q' cin d � co l J � p co �, ` J o co Cn cn � � � O co (D c � 0 N CIS � oCO fi f, � �� • • � � � � � � o � � � ;+- � c� �- � � �-�• �. �, � � � � � � � c� � � � � � o � � o �' � a� � y , _ � ��' . , , � � • O � �� � � � �, n � � � � � cn o o n � � . `� � � cc'o `� ,.� cn � � � � n� �o i � O d rD crq cn crq 4 1 1CL (D Rm crq �j CL • •. a a wr: 'z�it�r ` ',. tas'` :n' T'%sr&��'F�' 'n%mwA palsy s d ,:� `- R , g'a'r ' r'r 3 s`gsFlz�,a F �SY '�S.�nf'� v r R • f _ • ► � 'a" MOM Pill f ► x c r I V V V V V V O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O �ry Man N W w w � �V . -n �-r i 0 0 y D� , , • � O � • � � � � � O � �d � o � � � � N � � � � � � �� v� ,� � co N N 0 0 J � J W W W N � � N � � Dq G� -rt �• o W V J W � x: WA ` O H t V■ ,n N V■ � 1 y W - . -n o W46 mn �r U O m cn � � J D,4 ti p n P � OQ;z*14 Ul m O n � � N � � o co � D.W '� co n co ' �-�. m n � Ul Ul CN � o •o 0 0 • N � N J � � 76 76 IP 10000 roIr- ul W � No 0 00 0 0 o O � n Q n � Q n 0 co � d r-d o �• � n � d 1p �o CID CD � n n � N �N Q 0 � •� , , � � � o � o • '� � -a �, � � � o �n �� � n � �'' � � � C!� � O � Q �, � � co �o �• G �• � O Q � � n N I� CO � �� � . O � O A� � "� O �o � � o � Q Cp � DA n n tit c�pn O ct� � Q � �� . l � � � O ''� � � O � � OAR �' co � �� � � � � o 0 o �' ' o N Q ,� �. Cts � �,, co � � n u� d �D � � n o � D � coo � `n cin coo cin � c�l� � O ,-� �, A�• � . � � `� coo led C) C) Co �,• '-s c� Q' �n v CID cp o ri O CndA 00 o � N � � coo n O � � O � � 00 Q0n (o • n O 0 o '� . . � Dy ro �, � c° c��i� • dQ -�. S'' p � N o � � n o -ti r-t- n 0 0 N (0 � N CO � `'� � ,�• n� Cho n , � � O �• cn o d N 6' "d '�� O co cn (� O o � n � co co ��� �:,:i,< • rl'n � � c� . O � coo � � � � � �. � � � � o � � � ` � � a �o � � �, � - .a �G c° co � � • � �� � � . . � �,. � �� � n �.