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