Sacramento Head Start Alumni Association

2003-2004 CalWORKs

Aug 05, 2003

Recipient
Impact
Statement
PROPOSED GOVERNOR CUTS
JUNE, 2003 COLA DENIED - SAVINGS OF $ 13 MILLION
NO COLA FOR 2003-2004 - SAVINGS OF $ 252 MILLION
6% CALWORKS GRANT REDUCTION SAVINGS OF $ 242 MILLION
CUTS ALLOTED TO:
MORE MONEY FOR COUNTY WORKERS $241 MILLION
MONEY IN RESERVE FOR TANF $200 MILLION
TANF MONEY TO DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES $56 MILLION
Benefit reductions will be used to pay for more welfare workers and to fund
other state agencies. While saving $200 million in reserves, the children of
impoverished families are not able to eat the last week of the month and
their benefits remain at 1985-1986 levels.
Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Ins.
1901 Alhambra Blvd, Sacramento, CA
Tel. (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645 E-Mail - ccwro@aol.com
2003-2004 CalWORKs
Proposed Budget
TANF MONEY FOR NONTANF PROGRAM $598 MILLION
Current Grant Levels
1 $ 336
2 - 548
3 - 679
4 - 809
5 - 920
6 -1,033
7 -1,136
8 -1,237
Region II
Effective July 1, 2003
1 - $ 299
2 - 489
3 - 607
4 - 723
5 - 822
6 - 923
7 -1,013
8 -1,104
Current Grant Levels
1 $ 319
2 - 522
3 - 647
4 - 770
5 - 876
6 - 984
7 -1,079
8 -1,177
Figure #1.
(Source : DSS: http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/localassistanceest/jan03/AuxiliaryTables.pdf)
Region I
Effective July 1, 2003
1 $ 315
2 - 514
3 - 637
4 - 759
5 - 863
6 - 969
7 - 1,066
8 - 1,161
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page 2
person person person person
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,400.00
$1,600.00
$1,800.00
Series1
Series1 $185.00 $491.00 $690.00 $1,762.00
One
CalWORKs
Child
One KinGAP
Child
One
Adoption
Child
One Foster
Care Child
The Governor denies a costof-
living adjustment, reduces
benefits by 6.2%, yet diverts
$598 million of the Cal-
WORKs money to other programs
and puts $200 million
in reserve.
Average Benefits for
2003-2004
Average Monthly Benefits
Proposed by the 2003-2004
Governor?’s Budget allots
$185 per child living in a
poor family receiving
CalWORKs while a foster
care child not living in a
poor family gets $1,762 a
month. See Graph 1.
WHAT DOES THE BUDGET
DO TO THE POOREST CHILDREN
OF CALIFORNIA?
The budget proposes to take away the costof-
living adjustment (COLA) scheduled to go
into effect 6/03, deny COLA for 2003-2004
and decreases benefits by 6.2% effective July
1,2003. Below in Figure 2 are the current grant
levels and what the grant levels will be if the
inhumane and barbaric assault upon needy
children of California is allowed by the Democrats
in the State Legislature.
Graph #1.
(Source : DSS
2003-2004
Budget
Estimates)
(Source : DSS
2003-2004
Budget
Estimates)
SUMMARY OF THE STATE BUDGET FOR CalWORKs
The administration excuses these acts by stating
in the Budget Summary, ?“... this grant level
represents an increase from the start of this
Administration, when the monthly cash grant
for a family of three was
$611 in Region I and
$582 in Region II.?”
What a guy, that Gray
Davis. In 1987-88 the
same families were receiving
$617 a month.
One wonders if Gray
Davis would be willing to
reduce his pay down to
1999 levels when he
was elected, or down to
what his salary would
have been 1987? Now
that would be something
?– practicing what he
preaches.
The AFDC COLA
The annual cost of living
statute was signed into
law by Governor Ronald
Reagan in 1971, as a
part of the 1971 Welfare
Reform Act. While Governor,
he honored his
commitment to pay decent
benefits to impoverished
families with children.
Since Reagan?’s
departure, the AFDC
COLA has been a vulnerable
target for politicians
of both parties who
have attacked impoverished
families and their
children. Figure 2 shows
1972
72-73
73-74
74-75
75-76
76-77
77-78
78-79
79-80
80-81
81-82
82-83
83-84
84-85
85-86
86-87
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91
91-92
92-93
93-94
94-95
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
235
237
243
262
293
338
356
356
410
473
463
506
526
555
587
617
633
663
694
694
663
624
607
607
538
538
581
596
613
647
647
607
Figure #2.
the history of benefit levels in California.
Today, California?’s poor children live in deeper
poverty than they did during the 70?’s.
IS THERE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE TANF
BUDGET TO STOP THIS REDUCTION OF
BENEFITS AND GIVE THE WORKING
POOR A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT?
YES. $598 million of the TANF money meant
for the impoverished families with children of
California is used to pay for ?“other programs?”,
according to Governor Gray Davis. His own
budget document states:
?“The Budget includes total California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (Cal-
WORKs) expenditures of $6.7 billion,
which includes $5.8 billion for direct
CalWORKs program expenditures,
$598 million in other programs, and
$200 million for a CalWORKs program
reserve. Other programs
include the Statewide Automated Welfare System,
Child Welfare Services, California Community
Colleges education services, Department
of Child Support Services disregard payments,
and non-CalWORKs child care.?”
If $598 million dollars is not taken off the table
for other programs and $200 million for reserves,
then impoverished families with children
of California would not be forced to endure
a 6.2% cut in benefits and no cost of living
adjustment. Who says Gray Davis does
not care for poor families of California? He
does. Under his compassionate plan TANF
dollars meant for California children will be
used to fund the bureaucracy.
Year
Payment for
Family of 3
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page 3
THE DAVIS AFDC (aka CalWORKs) COLA ATTACK
The Governor?’s Budget Document states:
?“Grant Levels?—Consistent with the reduction
of the Supplemental Security Income/State
Supplementary Payment grant, CalWORKs
cash grants will be reduced by approximately 6
percent from the level in the 2002 Budget Act.
However, as discussed below, increased funding
for employment services will be provided
so that recipients can continue to move toward
employment. The monthly cash grant for a family
of three would decrease to $637 in Region I
and $607 in Region II. This grant level will allow
a family of three living in Region I to earn
up to $1,499 per month before its grant would
be reduced to zero. In addition to the grant
amount, the family typically would be eligible
for employment services, child care, food
stamps, and Medi-Cal. The reduction in the cash
grant allows $65.7 million in Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) funds to be
transferred to the federal Title XX Block Grant
in order to offset General Fund costs within the
Department of Developmental.?”
This makes perfect sense to the Davis Administration.
The Department of Development Services
needs money, so take it from poor families
with children.
TAKE AWAY FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO
THE BUREAUCRATS ?– The governor?’s budget
proposes to eliminate the CalWORKs COLA for
2003-2004 and reduce the current benefits by
6.2%, which results in a savings of about $262
million. He then proposes to give the welfare
bureaucrats $241.5 million dollars to provide
employment services to the those same families
whose grants are being barbarically reduced. The
Governor?’s budget states:
?“CalWORKs Employment Services?—The
Governor?’s Budget provides a one-time
augmentation of $241.5 million for employment
services. Given the reduction in CalWORKs
grant levels, it is important to invest in services
that enable recipients to leave aid and become
self-sufficient. ?“
How about that; he reduces the monthly benefits to
1985 levels, while giving $241.5 million dollars to the
bureaucrats. These are the same bureaucrats who are
very proficient in imposing sanctions on families and
dismal failures in getting jobs for welfare families that
makes them self-sufficient. Of course, the bureaucrats
donated to Gray Davis campaign, whereas poor children
and their parents did not. Thus, the bureaucrats
win and the poor children lose. It?’s simply business ?–
political business.
When the Governor says that everyone will be affected
by the budget, it is not really true. The impoverished
families of California have been disproportionately
singled out for the most barbaric attacks of this decade.
See Figure #3,
Figure #3.
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page 4
NEED MONEY? COME SEE TANF
The Gray Davis Budget Winners and
Losers?
CalWORKs Payments to Families ?– Down 10.88%
Foster Care Payments ?– Up 9.02%
Adoption Assistance ?– Up 17.82
Child Welfare Bureaucratic Costs ?– Up 5.89%
County Administration of Foster Care ?– Up 4.17%
CalWORKs Child Care ?– Up 4.38%
In Home Supportive Services ?– Up 19.92%
In response to federal welfare reform, the Legislature
created the California Work Opportunity
and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program,
enacted by Chapter270, Statutes of 1997
(AB 1542, Ducheny, Ashburn, Thompson, and
Maddy). The purpose of the employment program,
which is known as ?“Welfare to Work?”
(WtW) in California, is to make CalWORKs families
self-sufficient. In order to achieve this goal,
the California Legislature appropriated $2.5 billion
for 2002-2003.
There are various ways to evaluate the effectiveness
of the program. From the perspective of the
impoverished family - getting a job that makes
the family self-sufficient - is the real test.
Naturally the ?“family?” should always be more
important that any ?“job?”, but if there is going to
be a WtW program, then the programs?’ success
should be rated by the number of families that
become self-sufficient.
Unduplicated Entered Percentage of
Participants Employment Unduplicated
Resulting in Participants
Termination of Resulting in
Benefits Termination of
Benefits
175,219 8382 4.78%
177,302 7505 4.23%
174,329 7870 4.51%
182,075 6568 3.61%
180,866 6431 3.56%
183,920 7422 4.04%
184,134 5891 3.20%
174,916 6060 3.46%
176,419 6373 3.61%
177,601 7018 3.95%
177,257 7070 3.99%
172,072 7554 4.39%
Total 84,144
Year
and
Month
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
DSS has been collecting information from
counties about the number of unduplicated
participants, the number of families sanctioned
and number of ?“terminations due to
employment?”. These reports are contained in
the WtW 25 and WtW 25A series that are
posted on the DSS web page. (See http://
www. d s s . c a h w n e t . g o v / re s e a rch/
CalWORKsDa_388.htm).
During fiscal year 2001-2002 counties reported
84,144 families entered employment that resulted
in termination of CalWORKs. This does
not mean that the counties had anything to
do with the CalWORKs recipient getting the
job. This number
simply represents
the number of families
that secured employment
that
ended up terminating
their income.
Often the county
had nothing to do
with the recipients
securing the job.
The average cost for
securing a job that
resulted in termination
of CalWORKs
for an individual
during 2002-2003 is
an underestimated
$30,000.
Problems with
the Current System
and Need for
Changes Given
Figure # 4. 2001-2002 - The Jobs Success
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page 5
The average cost for securing a job
that resulted in termination of Cal-
WORKs for an individual during
2002-2003 is an underestimated
$30,000 per case.
(Source : DSS
WtW 25 Reports)
Welfare to Work (WtW) Employment Services
the Limited Resources
The current system was enacted at a
time when money was in abundance and
county welfare departments decided that they
can be welfare workers and employment specialists.
County welfare officials were never
employment specialists, even though they
wear that title . An employment specialist
would not last a day in private industry with
a failure rate of 96% which counties had during
2001-2002. Figures 4 presents the number
of unduplicated participants each month and
the percentage of participants that secured
employment that resulted in termination of
CalWORKs benefits. As the figures show
counties are not able to secure employment
for welfare recipients.
The current system is labor intensive,
requiring every person to have a employment
worker, requiring every person to go through
an orientation, then a job club, then assessment
and other activities, all the time having
your hand held by the county WtW worker.
While the WtW program is promoted to be a
program to achieve independence for welfare
recipients, what it really does is make welfare
recipients totally dependent on the whim of
the WtW worker. Forcing one to be dependent
on the welfare worker would not lead to independence
as shown by the fact that on the
average less than 4% of the participants enter
employment that results in termination of
welfare benefits.
The system needs to embrace independence
by the participants and give the county
welfare worker the flexibility to respond to the
choices that the participants make, rather than
the system, which gives counties flexibility to
force participants to accede to the choices
made by the welfare workers.
The counties are very good at sanctioning
participants. The sanction rate goes from
25% to 35% a month. Figure 5 reveals the sanction
rates for 2001-2002.
SOARING BUREAUCRACY: Figure 6
reveals that while money for payments to
families has declined by 50% during the past
10 years, the money for employment services
has soared from 200 to 300 percent during the
same 10 years. And the results have been dismal
as demonstrated above.
175219 44064 25.15%
177302 45803 25.83%
174329 47899 27.48%
182075 46464 25.52%
180866 44836 24.79%
183920 44647 24.28%
184134 43992 23.89%
174916 42748 24.44%
176419 43692 24.77%
177601 51150 28.80%
177257 58831 33.19%
172072 58980 34.28%
Year
and
Month
7/01
8/01
9/01
10/01
11/01
12/01
1/02
2/02
3/02
4/02
5/02
6/02
Undupl.
Participants
Number
of
Sanctions
Percentage
of
Sanctions
Figure 5. 2001-2002 WtW Sanctions
Payments to
Impoverished
Families
$ 6,695,421.
$ 5,620,401.
$ 4,635,959.
$ 3,428,855.
3,055,937
County
Administration
$ 640.372
$ 593,837
$ 610,281
$ 421,499
386,421
Employment
Services for
CalWORKs
$ 303,629
$ 391,819
$ 570,632
$1,103,409
877,810
Fiscal
Year
Appropr.
93-94
96-97
97-98
02-03
03-04
Proposed
Budget
Figure 6.
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page 6
SOARING BUREAUCRACY
Consider Any Participation Hours That
Are Allowable Under Federal Law.
The current program refuses to consider
?“work?” that meets the federal requirements
as a ?”work activity?”. For example, self-employed
persons, child care providers and other
workers who are not making minimum wage
are forced to quit their employment and start
participating in a costly WtW activity. This
costs taxpayers millions of dollars. While this
person was working, he or she was saving taxpayers
dollars. This is asinine, but that?’s what
DSS regulations provide for, in violation of
state law.
There are many
other activities
that can be
counted as participation
consistent
with federal law,
but the state laws, regulations and policies
prevents those participation hours to be
counted.
Recommendation: Amend the law to mandate
that any activity which is not prohibited
by federal law shall be considered an ?“activity?”
for CalWORKs welfare to work purposes.
Simplify the Participation Process
The current participation process is labor intensive
as stated above. A participant jumps
through orientation, job search, assessment,
vocational training and a host of other hoops.
Recommendation: Amend the law to mandate
that the participant be required to develop
his or her own participation plan and
make welfare to work workers available to
assist the participants, if needed.
This can save a lot of money in that many par-
CCWRO Recipients Impact Statement The 2003-2004 State Budget - Page7
?• 49% of the adults receiving CalWORKs
are the working poor.
?• There is nothing in the law that states the
Department shall assure that accommodations
are made for the working poor.
Proposed Revisions to the CalWORKs WtW program
ticipants will be able to develop their own participation
plans and not utilize county workers
as they currently have to do.
THE WORKING POOR
49% of the adults receiving CalWORKs are the
working poor.
The CalWORKs program is anything but
?“friendly to the working poor.?” In fact, it is
very ?“anti-working poor?”.
Counties have cost many working poor their
jobs by imposing
bureaucratic requirements
upon
them without
even considering
that majority of
the CalWORKs
adults are now
working.
When a person starts working, they have to
report their income. Often the income report
comes in with some errors. This often means
the working person has to take a day off, go
to the welfare office, wait for hours to be seen
by the worker who then threatens to take away
all of the cash aid and food stamps.
Only Sacramento County has evening hours
saved for the working poor on CalWORKs.
The rest of the counties, to the best of our
knowledge, make no accommodations for the
working poor. There is nothing in the law that
states the Department shall assure that accommodations
are made for the working poor.
Recommendation: Enact legislation to require
counties to operate the CalWORKs in
such a way to provide for accommodations
to working CalWORKs recipients and applicants.
The Coalition of California Welfare Rights
Organizations, Inc. (CCWRO) is a statewide
nonprofit organization which provides backup
services to qualified legal service field programs
funded by the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission
and any person referred to CCWRO by such
legal services field programs.
CCWRO provides consultation, information
and representation on issues relating to public benefit
programs such as: CalWORKs, Food Stamps,
General Assistance, SSI , Welfare to Work and other
Public Assistance Programs.
CCWRO maintains current information on
the status of pending or recently enacted state and
federal legislation and regulations which we have
identified as being important to legal services clients,
members and associates.
CCWRO also collects and monitors statistical
information relating to public assistance programs
throughout California.
ABOUT CCWRO
Staff
Kevin Aslanian
Executive Director, Lobbyist,
Public Benefits/GAIN/WtW Specialist
Grace Galligher,
Directing Attorney
Public Benefits
Publications
?• California Welfare Reporter
?• Public Assistance Table
?• Welfare Advocates Directory
?• Informational Mailings.
?•NEW -Weekly New Welfare New e-mails
Services
CCWRO provides:
?• Immediate response to questions from
legal services programs regarding public
benefit programs, laws and regulations.
?• Collects and disperses statistical information
and analysis on the public assistance
programs.
?• Provide status information on pending
state regulations.
?• Co counsel on class action lawsuits.
?• Client representation at fair hearings.
CCWRO
Tel. (916) 736-0616 Fax (916) 736-2645
E-Mail - ccwro@aol.com
1901 Alhambra Blvd, Sacramento, CA
CALWORKS
CASH ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
FOR IMMIGRANTS (CAPI)
CHILD CARE
CHILD SUPPORT
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
DENTI-CAL
FOOD STAMPS
GENERAL ASSISTANCE/
GENERAL RELIEF
IN HOME SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES (IHSS)
MEDI-CAL
REFUGEE CASH ASSISTANCE
REFUGEE IMMIGRATION
ISSUES
SSI DISABILITY ISSUES
WELFARE TO WORK
(WTW)
Programs