1. family and parenting
2. children

A Town Hall Meeting
Poverty in California
February 13, 2013
Sacramento
This event is a production of the LegiSchool Project: A civic education
collaboration between California State University, Sacramento and the
California State Legislature
A Town Hall Meeting
Poverty in California
www.csus.edu/legischool_project.html
Megan Thorall, LegiSchool Project Director
Poverty in California
Dr. Mimi Coughlin, Sacramento State
The economic impact of the Great Recession has made headlines in recent years as businesses and individuals struggle
to recover from economic losses. Not surprisingly, poverty rates have climbed during this difficult period – and
California has been hit particularly hard. Also of particular concern is the increase in poverty among children.
Nationwide about one in every five children lives in poverty; in California, the rate is even higher, with about one in
four children living in poverty. Studies show that even short-term, recession-induced poverty can have a serious
impact on a child’s future in terms of health, educational achievement, and lifetime earning potential.
How is “poverty” measured?
For public policy purposes, at the federal and state level, specific measurements are used to determine whether an
individual is considered poor. For example, the federal government considers a family of two adults and two children
is poor when their pre-tax annual income falls below $19,157. This is often referred to as “falling below” the poverty
line and this status qualifies individuals for particular programs and assistance.
The predominant method of measuring poverty was developed in the 1960s and used the price of food as the basis for
determining what is considered adequate income. This measurement has been adjusted for inflation every year, but
critics say that it does not account for variations in cost of living expenses. For example, it costs more to live in some
places than in others, so rent rates should be considered. Also, work related expenses, like commuting costs or childcare fees, have an impact on families’ income and should not be ignored.
The high cost of living in California compared with the rest of the country affects everyone and is especially difficult for
low-income individuals. For example, in San Francisco, a basic two-bedroom apartment costs $21,300 per year.
That’s more than a family of four at the federal poverty threshold earns in a year, before even considering food,
clothing, and other expenses. In addition, because of the high rate of poverty in California, there is stiff competition
for inclusion in assistance programs like food stamps and CalWorks.
A plan using “supplemental poverty measures,” to account for factors like regional housing costs and other expenses,
has recently been put into effect. It is intended to yield more accurate data on how many of our state’s residents live
in poverty today, and to direct funding to those in most need.
Who is living in poverty?
In California, children account for a disproportionately large number of those living in poverty: about one out of every
four children in California lives below the federal poverty line. The number varies from county to county, but more
than a quarter of all the poor children in California live in Los Angeles County.
Statistically, child poverty rates among Latinos and African Americans are much higher (Latino: 30% poverty rate;
African American: 31% poverty rate) than for Whites (10% poverty rate) and Asians (12% poverty rate). On the surface
this may seem to attribute poverty to California’s large immigrant population, but, in fact, over 90% of children living
in poverty have been born in the United States.
Also surprising is that the majority of poor children (61%) live in families where one or both parents work, either fulltime or part-time. Less surprising is the fact that child poverty rates are particularly high (45%) among families headed
by a single mother.
Connections between education and poverty.
Within California, almost half (44%) of the children who live in poverty are raised in families where neither parent has
a high school diploma. This reflects the connection between earning potential and education level. Given the
relationship between educational attainment and earning power, it is very troubling that children who grow up in
poverty are very likely to have lower levels of educational attainment themselves. Their schools tend to have fewer
resources, they often suffer from poor nutrition and other untreated health problems, many of them move frequently,
and they are subject to chronic stress as a result of their situation. Consequently, poor children often achieve low
scores on standardized tests and more likely to be held back a grade. Poor children are more likely to drop out of high
school and less likely to obtain a college degree. All of this diminishes their job prospects, and perpetuates the cycle
of poverty for them and their families.
These educational trends also impact society as a whole. The productivity of the nation’s work force is lowered and
the nation’s ability to compete in an increasingly globalized economy is limited. In addition, higher expenditures to
pay for health care costs (for those who did not receive proper pre-natal and pediatric health care) and increased
crime subtract substantially from the nation’s economic growth. Childhood poverty has long-term effects for society
as well as for individuals and families.
Discussion Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Why do you think that Latino and African American children in California (and nationwide) are more likely to
grow up in poverty than White and Asian children? Is this the result of historic events or are there other
reasons for the statistics?
We have learned that the cost of living is very high in California. Why, then, do you think that so many
families choose to live here in poverty rather than go to someplace with a lower cost of living, like South
Dakota?
Can you foresee any changes as a result of the supplemental poverty measures being taken into
consideration? Can you think of some factors that weren’t mentioned above that might impact a family’s
cost of living?
The social service programs provided to people in poverty (welfare, food stamps, reduced and free school
lunches, etc.) have been referred to as a “safety net.” Is this safety net a positive thing that helps struggling
people stay afloat, or is it a negative influence, a deterrent from self-reliance?
How can the public education system contribute to ending the cycle of poverty? What programs have you
heard of that are currently in place? Can you make any other suggestions to create solutions to the problem?
Reflection Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
Did you or anyone you know grow up in poverty? What impact would/did that have on your life today?
How would you describe our society’s attitude toward the poor? Has this societal view shifted at all in the
past few years during the recession?
What responsibility, if any, do you think the government has to relieve poverty? Would wiping out poverty
have any impact on the state as a whole?
Can you think of any ways you personally could work to alleviate poverty California? What contributions
could you make, either as an individual or as part of an organization?
POVERTY: Facts and Figures
December 2011
POVERTY IN CALIFORNIA
Sarah Bohn
 California’s poverty rate spiked during the Great Recession.
After declining to 12% in 2006 (the lowest level since the mid-1980s), the poverty rate in California spiked upward:
as of 2010, it was 16%. This amounts to nearly six million Californians in families below the federal poverty level of
income (about $22,000 for a family of four). Unofficial poverty rates are even higher when California’s high cost of
living is accounted for.
 California’s poverty rate has not yet matched its early-1990s peak.
Despite the severity of the Great Recession, a smaller percentage of Californians are in poverty now than during the
recession of the early 1990s—in 1993 the poverty rate reached 18.1%. Given the persistently high rate and duration
of unemployment, it is possible that poverty is still rising in the Great Recession’s aftermath. Even if this does not
happen, rates of poverty will be much higher than they were three to four decades ago.
 California typically has a higher poverty rate than the rest of the nation.
For most of the past two decades, California’s poverty rate has exceeded that of the rest of the country. By 2006 the
two rates had nearly converged, with California’s rate declining and the rate in the rest of the U.S. rising. But during
the Great Recession, the state’s poverty rate grew faster, and now California’s rate is slightly higher (16.3%) than in
the rest of the country (14.9%).
 Latinos and African Americans have higher poverty rates than other groups.
Latinos (22.8%) and African Americans (22.1%) have much higher poverty rates than Asians (11.8%) and whites
(9.5%) in California. The statewide poverty rate among Latinos living in families with a foreign-born head of
household is 25.7%; for the same group outside of California, it is significantly higher (28.4%).
 Poverty varies dramatically in accordance with educational level.
In 2010, the poverty rate among families without any adult high school graduates was 31.3%. At the other extreme,
in families headed by at least one college degree holder, the poverty rate was only 5.2%. For families in which the
highest level of education is a high school diploma, the poverty rate was 19.2%.
 Poverty varies considerably across California’s counties.
In 2010, the lowest poverty rate in California was in San Mateo County (6.7%) and the highest was in Fresno County
(27.1%). Many Bay Area counties in addition to San Mateo (Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, Napa, and Solano) had
poverty rates below 12%, placing them in the bottom quarter of all counties. At the other end of the spectrum,
Central Valley counties around Fresno (Merced, Tulare, Kings, Kern, and San Joaquin) were in the top quarter, with
poverty rates in excess of 20%. More than 29% of poor people in California live in Los Angeles County.
 Most poor families in California are working.
The majority (63.4%) of poor people in California are in working families. In 38.3% of poor families, a family member
is working full-time, and in another 25.1% someone is working part-time. Workforce participation among the poor
in California has decreased slightly (from 68.5%) since 2006, immediately before the recession, but it has increased
over the past three decades and remains higher than in the rest of the nation.
www.ppic.org
POVERTY IN CALIFORNIA
December 2011
During the recession, California’s poverty rate increased more rapidly than in the rest of the nation
Population in poverty
20%
18%
CA
16%
Rest of U.S.
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Source: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (March).
Poverty rates in California’s counties
County or county group
Poverty rate (%)
County or county group
Poverty rate (%)
Alameda
Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo,
Mariposa, Mono, Tuolumne
Butte
13.30
Placer
12.60
Riverside
16.60
20.90
Sacramento
17.30
Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Trinity
17.30
Contra Costa
Del Norte, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou
El Dorado
Fresno
9.40
21.90
9.80
27.10
9.40
San Bernardino
17.80
San Diego
14.70
San Francisco
12.60
San Joaquin
20.10
San Luis Obispo
14.60
Humboldt
15.00
San Mateo
Imperial
20.80
Santa Barbara
19.00
Kern
21.40
Santa Clara
10.40
Kings
21.70
Santa Cruz
14.00
Lake, Mendocino
20.20
Shasta
17.90
Los Angeles
17.30
Solano
11.80
Madera
19.50
Sonoma
13.50
Marin
9.60
6.70
Stanislaus
19.80
Merced
24.30
Sutter, Yuba
18.30
Monterey, San Benito
16.50
Tulare
23.50
Napa
11.10
Ventura
10.60
Nevada, Plumas, Sierra
13.40
Yolo
17.90
Orange
12.00
California Total
15.70
Source: American Community Survey, 2010.
Note: For some counties, poverty rates cannot be calculated individually; these counties are grouped with nearby counties.
Sources: American Community Survey (2010) for demographic and geographic breakdown; Current Population Survey Annual Social and
Economic Supplement (1970–2011) for trends (both from the U.S. Census Bureau). Census Bureau Supplemental Poverty Measure resources.
Contact: [email protected]
www.ppic.org
December 2011
CHILD POVERTY IN CALIFORNIA
Sarah Bohn
 Child poverty rates in California increased rapidly during the Great Recession.
After reaching a low of about 16% in 2001, the child poverty rate in California has been trending upward. The Great
Recession accelerated the increase: by 2010, nearly 1 in 4 children was living in poverty in California (23.2%). Child
poverty in California is much higher than the poverty rate among adults (14%) and the elderly (10%).
 Child poverty is still lower than its peak during the recession of the early 1990s.
Despite the severity of the Great Recession, a smaller percentage of children in California are in poverty than during
the recession of the early 1990s—in 1994 the child poverty rate reached a high of 28%. Although the Great
Recession is officially over, it is not yet clear whether the child poverty rate has peaked. Regardless, more children
are in poverty now than three to four decades ago.
 The trend in California is similar to that in the rest of the country.
Since 2001, the rate of child poverty has been holding steady or climbing in both California and the rest of the U.S.
During the Great Recession, poverty among children increased across the country, but by 2010 the child poverty
rate in the rest of the nation was 21.7%, slightly lower than California’s rate.
 Latino and African American children have higher poverty rates than other groups.
The child poverty rates for Latinos (30%) and African Americans (31%) are much higher than the rates among Asian
children (12.1%) and whites (10%) in California. However, in the rest of the country poverty rates among Latino and
African American children are even higher (39% and 33%, respectively). Child poverty rates are significantly higher
in families headed by immigrants than in families headed by American-born adults (27.6% vs. 16.8%). But most
poor children in California are U.S.-born (90.6%) and the majority (63.5%) are U.S.-born Latinos.
 Child poverty varies considerably across California.
In five San Francisco Bay Area counties (San Mateo, San Francisco, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, and Marin), child
poverty rates are in the bottom quarter (below 13%). By contrast, rates in most Central Valley counties (Fresno,
Tulare, Kings, Merced, Kern, Madero, and Stanislaus) are in the top 10, all at 29% or higher. More than a quarter
(28.5%) of poor children in California live in Los Angeles County.
 Poverty rates are particularly high among single-mother and less-educated families.
Poverty rates are higher for children living with single mothers (45%) than for those in married-couple families
(14.6%) or with a single father (29.2%). The child poverty rate in single-mother families in the rest of the U.S. is even
higher (48.1%). Most poor children (in terms of absolute numbers, not the rate of poverty) are part of marriedcouple families (48.7%). The child poverty rate in families where neither parent has a high school diploma is high in
California (44.7%), but not as high as in the rest of the country (52.3%).
 Most poor children are in working families.
A majority of poor children live in families where one or both parents are working: 37.2% of poor children have a
parent working full-time and an additional 23.8% have a parent working part-time. That is, 61% of poor children are
in families with a working adult. This is down substantially since 2006, before the recession, when 77% of poor
children were in working families.
www.ppic.org
CHILD POVERTY IN CALIFORNIA
December 2011
California’s child poverty rates have been similar to those in the rest of the nation in recent years
30%
Children in poverty
25%
20%
15%
CA
Rest of U.S.
10%
5%
0%
Source: Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement (March).
Child poverty rates vary widely across California’s counties
County or county group
Child poverty
rate (%)
County or county group
Child poverty
rate (%)
Alameda
Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Inyo,
Mariposa, Mono, Tuolumne
16.99
Placer
11.09
13.15
Riverside
23.63
Butte
24.24
Sacramento
24.28
Colusa, Glenn, Tehama, Trinity
24.82
San Bernardino
24.94
Contra Costa
12.73
San Diego
19.05
Del Norte, Lassen, Modoc, Siskiyou
29.56
San Francisco
10.89
El Dorado
11.53
San Joaquin
27.86
Fresno
38.00
San Luis Obispo
13.80
Humboldt
14.59
San Mateo
7.03
Imperial
29.97
Santa Barbara
23.62
Kern
31.17
Santa Clara
12.88
Kings
32.23
Santa Cruz
15.32
Lake, Mendocino
30.38
Shasta
25.06
Los Angeles
24.01
Solano
16.98
Madera
29.51
Sonoma
16.48
Marin
13.08
Stanislaus
28.73
Merced
32.09
Sutter, Yuba
26.66
Monterey, San Benito
24.20
Tulare
32.45
Napa
16.20
Ventura
14.77
Nevada, Plumas, Sierra
19.54
Yolo
19.77
Orange
16.25
Total
21.81
Source: American Community Survey, 2010.
Note: For some counties, poverty rates cannot be calculated individually; these counties are grouped with nearby counties.
Sources: American Community Survey (2010) for demographic and geographic breakdown; Current Population Survey Annual Social and
Economic Supplement (1970–2011) for trends. Both from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Contact: [email protected]
www.ppic.org
September 13, 2011
New Data Show That More Than 6 Million Californians – Over
One-Third of Them Children – Lived in Poverty in 2010
Census Bureau data released today show that the share of Californians with incomes below the federal
poverty line rose in 2010 for the fourth straight year. The state’s 2010 poverty rate rose to 16.3 percent,
the highest rate since 1997 (Figure 1). More than 6 million Californians – nearly one out of six – had
incomes below the federal poverty line. In addition, 2.2 million of the state's children – nearly one out
of four – were living in poverty in 2010 (Figure 2).
The new data also show a sharp drop in inflation-adjusted income for the typical California household.
The state's median household income dropped by $2,602 (4.6 percent) to $54,459 in 2010 – the largest
single-year drop on record (Figure 3).
Figure 1: California's Poverty Rate Increased Significantly Between 2006 and 2010
The State's 2010 Poverty Rate Was the Highest Since 1997
Percentage of People With Incomes Below the Federal Poverty Line
19%
18%
17%
16.3%
16%
15.1%
15%
12.9%
14%
12.7%
12.3%
13%
12.8%
12%
12.2%
11%
11.3%
10%
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
California
Source: US Census Bureau
US
Figure 2: California's Child Poverty Rate Increased Significantly Between 2009 and 2010
Nearly One Out of Four California Children Lived in Families With Incomes Below the Poverty Line in 2010
29%
Percentage of Children Under Age 18 in Families
With Incomes Below the Federal Poverty Line
27%
25%
23.4%
22.0%
23%
22.0%
21.0%
21%
20.7%
20.6%
16.4%
18.1%
19%
17%
17.4%
16.3%
15%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
California
US
Source: US Census Bureau
Figure 3: The Inflation-Adjusted Income of the Typical California Household Dropped
by $2,602 Between 2009 and 2010, the Largest Single-Year Decline on Record
$62,000
$59,821
$59,274
Median Household Income (2010 Dollars)
$60,000
$58,000
$57,061
$56,042
$56,000
$54,000
$53,164
$52,124
$54,459
$52,000
$50,000
$49,076
$49,445
$48,000
$46,000
$44,000
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
California
US
Source: US Census Bureau
2
Specifically, the new Census data show that:
 In 2010, 6.1 million Californians (16.3 percent) had incomes below the federal poverty line. California’s poverty
rate increased by a statistically significant 4.1 percentage points from 12.2 percent in 2006, the year before the
recession began. The federal poverty line varies by family size. The 2010 federal poverty line was $22,113 for a
family of four with two children.
 California’s inflation-adjusted median household income – the income of the household at the middle of the
income distribution – fell by $2,602 (4.6 percent) to $54,459 between 2009 and 2010. This is the largest singleyear decline – in inflation-adjusted dollars – on record and also a statistically significant decline of $5,362 (9.0
percent) from 2006, the most recent peak.
 The US poverty rate rose to 15.1 percent in 2010, up by a statistically significant 2.8 percentage points from a
recent low of 12.3 percent in 2006. California’s 2010 poverty rate – 16.3 percent – was 1.2 percentage points
higher than the national rate.
 The inflation-adjusted US median household income dropped to $49,445 in 2010. This is a decline of $1,154 (2.3
percent) from the prior year and a decline of $2,679 (5.1 percent) from 2006 – both statistically significant
decreases. The gap between California’s median household income and that of the nation narrowed in 2010.
California’s median household income was $5,014 above the nation’s in 2010, down from $6,462 in 2009.
 More than one out of five Californians under the age of 65 (21.4 percent) lacked health coverage in 2010,
compared to 19.6 percent in 2006 – a statistically significant increase (Figure 4).
 The share of Californians under the age of 65 with job-based health coverage was 52.9 percent in 2010, down
from 56.4 percent in 2006 – a statistically significant decrease (Figure 5).
In addition to these overall trends in household income and economic standing, the new Census data indicate a
substantial increase in the number of California's children living in poverty. The data show that:

In 2010, 2.2 million California children – nearly one out of four – lived in families with incomes below the federal
poverty line. The share of California’s children living in families with incomes below the poverty line rose to 23.4
percent in 2010, up from 21.0 percent the prior year and up from 18.1 percent in 2006 – both statistically
significant increases.

Children accounted for a disproportionately large share of Californians living in poverty. While children were
one-quarter of the state’s population (25.5 percent) in 2010, they accounted for more than one-third of
Californians with incomes below the federal poverty line (36.6 percent).
With a historic share of California families facing challenges brought on by the Great Recession, the data released
today highlight the need for policies that put people back to work, promote economic security for families, and boost
economic growth.
3
Figure 4: More Than One Out of Five Californians Under Age 65 Lacked Health Coverage in 2010
Percentage of People Under Age 65 Without Health Coverage
25%
21.4%
20%
19.9%
19.7%
19.2%
19.8%
19.6%
19.1%
20.0%
19.3%
16.8%
16.4%
17.1%
16.5%
16.7%
16.6%
15.7%
15.2%
14.7%
18.4%
18.2%
18.2%
15%
21.4%
10%
5%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
California
2008
2009
2010
US
Source: US Census Bureau
Figure 5: The Share of Californians Under Age 65 With
Job-Based Coverage Declined During the Past Decade
Percentage of People Under Age 65 With Job-Based Health Insurance
80%
70%
69.2%
61.8%
67.7%
60.2%
66.6%
65.0%
61.7%
58.6%
60%
64.0%
63.9%
56.1%
56.8%
63.5%
56.4%
63.4%
62.3%
59.4%
58.0%
56.7%
52.8%
58.6%
52.9%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
California
2006
2007
US
Source: US Census Bureau
4
2008
2009
2010
Rising Poverty Could Limit Our Future
Poverty imposes enormous costs on society through the lost potential of children who grow up in families with very
low incomes. Research finds that children raised in poverty tend to:

Have lower levels of educational attainment. They are more likely to score lower on standardized tests,
be held back a grade, and drop out of high school, and they are less likely to get a college degree than their
peers whose families have higher incomes.1 These outcomes reflect the fact that children living in poverty
tend to attend schools with fewer resources; suffer from poor nutrition, chronic stress, and other health
problems that interfere with their school work; and change residences and schools frequently as their
families struggle to find affordable housing – disruptions that can limit their success in school.2

Have lower earnings and are more likely to live in poverty as adults.3 Since growing up in poverty
can limit children’s success in school, it can diminish their prospects in the job market when they become
adults. Research shows, for example, that children who lived in poverty during their first five years of life
earned just $17,900 per year, on average, as adults – less than half as much as similar adults whose
families had incomes above twice the poverty line when they were children.4
Even “recession-induced” poverty, brought about by downturns in the economy, can have devastating consequences
for children. One study, for example, found that children whose families fell into poverty during a national recession
were substantially less likely to graduate from high school; earned about 30 percent less, on average, as adults; and
were more than three times as likely to live in poverty as adults, relative to their peers whose families did not fall
into poverty during the same recession.5 These findings are significant because both groups of children started off in
similar circumstances before the downturn began. This analysis concludes that children who fall into poverty during a
downturn:
Will live in households with lower incomes, they will earn less themselves, and they have a greater
chance at living in or near poverty as adults. They will achieve lower levels of education, and they
will be less likely to be gainfully employed. Children who experience recession-induced poverty will
even have poorer health than their peers who [stay] out of poverty during the childhood recession.6
Given that the Great Recession was far more severe than any downturn in recent history, its impact on children is
likely to be more substantial than that of prior recessions, with longer-lasting consequences.
The negative effects of poverty extend beyond the children directly affected to society as a whole. Since children who
grow up in poverty tend to have lower educational attainment and earnings, poverty can diminish the productivity of
the nation’s workforce and reduce the nation’s ability to compete in an increasingly globalized economy. While
quantifying the costs of poverty is challenging, one estimate suggests that even before the Great Recession began,
childhood poverty cost the nation around $500 billion per year in lost adult productivity and wages, increased
crime, and higher health expenditures – equivalent to 4 percent of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – the value
of all goods and service produced in the US.7 By way of comparison, US GDP growth averaged 2.5 percent over the
past 15 years.8 In other words, economic growth could more than double if none of the nation’s children grew up in
poverty.
5
ENDNOTES
1
Center for the Future of Children and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Future of Children: Children and Poverty 7:2 (Summer/Fall
1997), p. 2; Harry J. Holzer, Penny Wise, Pound Foolish: Why Tackling Child Poverty During the Great Recession Makes Economic Sense (Half in
Ten: September 2010); Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Greg J. Duncan, “The Effects of Poverty on Children” in Center for the Future of Children and
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, The Future of Children: Children and Poverty 7:2 (Summer/Fall 1997), pp. 55-71; and Kristin Anderson
Moore, et al., Children in Poverty: Trends, Consequences, and Policy Options (Child Trends: April 2009), p. 4.
2
Coalition on Human Needs, The Recession Generation: Preventing Long-Term Damage From Child Poverty and Young Adult Joblessness (July
2010), p. 8 and Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., Children in Poverty: Trends, Consequences, and Policy Options (Child Trends: April 2009), p. 4.
3
Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson, “The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty” Pathways Magazine (Winter 2011), pp. 22-27; Greg J.
Duncan, Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, and Ariel Kalil, “Early-Childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, and Health” Child Development 81:2
(January/February 2010), pp. 306-325; and Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., Children in Poverty: Trends, Consequences, and Policy Options (Child
Trends: April 2009), p. 5.
4
Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson, “The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty” Pathways Magazine (Winter 2011), p. 27.
5
First Focus, Turning Point: The Long-Term Effects of Recession-Induced Child Poverty (May 2009).
6
First Focus, Turning Point: The Long-Term Effects of Recession-Induced Child Poverty (May 2009), p. 13.
7
Harry J. Holzer, et al., The Economic Costs of Poverty in the United States: Subsequent Effects of Children Growing Up Poor (Center for
American Progress: January 24, 2007).
8
US Bureau of Economic Analysis.
6
2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
The 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
One Version of the [U.S.] Federal Poverty Measure
[ Latest Poverty Guidelines ]
[ Federal Register Notice, January 20, 2011 — Full text ]
[ Prior Poverty Guidelines and Federal Register References Since 1982 ]
[ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) ]
[ Further Resources on Poverty Measurement, Poverty Lines, and Their History ]
[ Computations for the 2011 Poverty Guidelines ]
There are two slightly different versions of the federal poverty measure: The poverty thresholds, and
The poverty guidelines.
The poverty thresholds are the original version of the federal poverty measure. They are updated each year by
the Census Bureau (although they were originally developed by Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security
Administration). The thresholds are used mainly for statistical purposes — for instance, preparing estimates of
the number of Americans in poverty each year. (In other words, all official poverty population figures are
calculated using the poverty thresholds, not the guidelines.) Poverty thresholds since 1973 (and for selected
earlier years) and weighted average poverty thresholds since 1959 are available on the Census Bureau’s Web
site. For an example of how the Census Bureau applies the thresholds to a family’s income to determine its
poverty status, see “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty” on the Census Bureau’s web site.
The poverty guidelines are the other version of the federal poverty measure. They are issued each year in the
Federal Register by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The guidelines are a simplification
of the poverty thresholds for use for administrative purposes — for instance, determining financial eligibility for
certain federal programs. The Federal Register notice of the 2011 poverty guidelines is available.
The poverty guidelines are sometimes loosely referred to as the “federal poverty level” (FPL), but that phrase is
ambiguous and should be avoided, especially in situations (e.g., legislative or administrative) where precision is
important.
Key differences between poverty thresholds and poverty guidelines are outlined in a table under Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQs). See also the discussion of this topic on the Institute for Research on Poverty’s web site.
NOTE: The poverty guideline figures below are NOT the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor
persons.
The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds.
2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
Persons
in Family
48 Contiguous
States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii
1
$10,890
$13,600 $12,540
2
14,710
18,380 16,930
3
18,530
23,160 21,320
4
22,350
27,940 25,710
5
26,170
32,720 30,100
6
29,990
37,500 34,490
7
33,810
42,280 38,880
8
37,630
47,060 43,270
For each additional
person, add
3,820
4,780 4,390
SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 13, January 20, 2011, pp. 3637-3638
The separate poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative
practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period. Note that the poverty thresholds — the original version of the
poverty measure — have never had separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii. The poverty guidelines are not
defined for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Palau. In cases in which
a Federal program using the poverty guidelines serves any of those jurisdictions, the Federal office which
administers the program is responsible for deciding whether to use the contiguous-states-and-D.C. guidelines for
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml[1/4/2013 3:19:50 PM]
2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
those jurisdictions or to follow some other procedure.
The poverty guidelines apply to both aged and non-aged units. The guidelines have never had an aged/non-aged
distinction; only the Census Bureau (statistical) poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged
one-person and two-person units.
Programs using the guidelines (or percentage multiples of the guidelines — for instance, 125 percent or 185
percent of the guidelines) in determining eligibility include Head Start, the Food Stamp Program, the National
School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance
Program. Note that in general, cash public assistance programs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and
Supplemental Security Income) do NOT use the poverty guidelines in determining eligibility. The Earned Income
Tax Credit program also does NOT use the poverty guidelines to determine eligibility. For a more detailed list of
programs that do and don’t use the guidelines, see the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
The poverty guidelines (unlike the poverty thresholds) are designated by the year in which they are issued. For
instance, the guidelines issued in January 2011 are designated the 2011 poverty guidelines. However, the 2011
HHS poverty guidelines only reflect price changes through calendar year 2010; accordingly, they are
approximately equal to the Census Bureau poverty thresholds for calendar year 2010. (The 2010 thresholds are
expected to be issued in final form in September 2011; a preliminary version of the 2010 thresholds is now
available from the Census Bureau.)
The computations for the 2011 poverty guidelines are available.
The poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as “the poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal
Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2).”
Go to Further Resources on Poverty Measurement, Poverty Lines, and Their History
Go to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Return to the main Poverty Guidelines, Research, and Measurement page.
Last Revised: 02/02/12
ASPE Home | HHS Home | Questions? | Contacting HHS | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Plain Writing
Act | No FEAR Act | Disclaimers
The White House | USA.gov | Flu.gov
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services – 200 Independence Avenue, S.W. – Washington, D.C. 20201
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml[1/4/2013 3:19:50 PM]
How is poverty status related to age?
In 2010, the age distribution of people in poverty was



35% of the people in poverty were under 18 years of age; this age group
accounted for 24% of the total population
57% of the people in poverty were 18 to 64 years of age; this age group
accounted for 63% of the total population
8% of the people in poverty were 65 years or older; this age group accounted for
13% of the total population
The poverty rates by age were



22% of all people under 18 years of age were poor
13.7% of all people 18 to 64 years of age were poor
9% of all people 65 years or older were poor
Source: DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau,
Current Population reports P60-239, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United
States: 2010, [Table 4: People and Familiies in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2009 and 2010],
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2011. Accessed 2/14/2012.
How does nativity relate to poverty status?
In 2010, the breakdown of people in poverty by immigration status was


83% of people in poverty were native born; this group accounted for 87% of the
total population
17% of the people in poverty were foreign born; this group accounted for 13% of
the total population
- 4% of the foreign born people in poverty were naturalized citizens; this group
accounted for 6% of the total population
- 13% of the foreign born people in poverty were not citizens; this group
accounted for 7% of the total population
Source: DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U.S. Census Bureau,
Current Population reports P60-239, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the
United States: 2010, [Table 4: People and Familiies in Poverty by Selected Characteristics: 2009 and
2010], U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2011. Accessed 2/14/2012.
How does gender relate to poverty status?
In 2010, the gender distribution of people in poverty was


45% of people in poverty were male; males accounted for 49% of the total
population
55% of the people in poverty were female; females accounted for 51% of the total
population
The poverty rate by gender were


14.0% for males
16.2% for females
Source: Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement 2010 Poverty Table POV01: Age and Sex of
All People, Family Members and Unrelated Individuals Iterated by Income-to-Poverty Ratio and
Race, Below 100% of Poverty. Accessed 2/17/2011
LAO
7 0 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C E
May 10, 2011
Overview on Poverty
L E G I S L A T I V E
A N A L Y S T ’ S
Presented to:
Senate Committee on Human Services
Hon. Carol Liu, Chair
O F F I C E
May 10, 2011
LAO
7 0 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C E
Poverty Measurements





Definition of Poverty. Poverty thresholds were developed by
Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration in the
early 1960s. Because expenditure data then indicated that
families spent about one-third of their income on food, she
developed the poverty threshold as equal to three times the
“economy food plan.”
Drawbacks of This Measure. For decades there have been
criticisms of this approach. These criticisms include (1) not
accounting for changes in household expenditure trends or
regional differences in cost of living, and (2) ignoring government
benefits and certain taxes.
A Consistent Measuring Stick. Despite its flaws, the poverty
thresholds allow researchers and policy makers to examine
trends over time using a consistent measure.
Substantial Changes Set for 2011. In September 2011, the
Census Bureau will publish two sets of poverty data. One report
will be based on the historical measure, and another will make
several adjustments including: regional cost of living, certain
government benefits, home ownership status, taxes, certain
medial costs, and updated household expenditure trends.
Poverty Policy. Although this handout focuses on California’s
cash assistance programs, poverty prevention policy is much
more complicated, including many aspects of human behavior
and economics.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
1
May 10, 2011
LAO
7 0 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C E
Poverty Trends in California and the Nation
Percentage of
Population in Poverty
20%
18
16
14
12
10
8
United States
6
California
4
2
1982



1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
2003
2006
2009
From 1970 until about 1990, the poverty rate in California was
a few percentage points below the national average. From
about 1991 through about 2006, the poverty rate in California
exceeded the national rate.
The California poverty rate peaked in 1993 at about 18 percent,
about double the rate in 1970.
After 1993, the poverty rate slowly declined reaching a low of
12.2 percent in 2006. Since then, the poverty rate has risen to
15.3 percent in 2009.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
2
May 10, 2011
LAO
7 0 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C E
Historical Cash Assistance by Program
Relative to Poverty



SSI/SSP Couples. Historically, Supplemental Security Income/
State Supplementary Program (SSI/SSP) couples received the
highest level of cash assistance in California. Specifically, from
1994-95 through 2007-08, couples on SSI/SSP received cash
benefits between 130 percent and 140 percent of the poverty
guideline. (Effective October 2009, the Legislature reduced
SSI/SSP grants to 116 percent of the federal poverty guideline.)
SSI/SSP Individuals. Historically, individuals on SSI/SSP
received less than couples on SSI/SSP but more than California
Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) families.
Typically, the SSI/SSP grant was just above the poverty guideline.
CalWORKs Families. In terms of cash assistance, CalWORKs
families have been the furthest below the federal poverty guideline. Typically, the combined CalWORKs grant and CalFresh
(formerly Food Stamps) benefits were between 75 percent and
80 percent of poverty.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
3
May 10, 2011
LAO
7 0 Y E A R S O F S E RV I C E
CalWORKs Grants
CalWORKs Maximum Monthly Grant and Food Stamps
Family of Three
Change
January
2011
July
2011
$694
460
$1,154
75%
$638
476
$1,114
72%
-$56
16
-$40
-8%
3
-3%
$661
470
$1,131
73%
$608
484
$1,092
71%
-$53
14
-$39
-8%
3
-3%
Amount
Percent
High-Cost Counties
Grant
CalFresha
Totals
Percent of Poverty
Low-Cost Counties
Grant
CalFresha
Totals
Percent of Poverty
a Formerly Food Stamps.


Recent Grant Reduction. Chapter 8, Statutes of 2011 (SB 72,
Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) reduced CalWORKs
grants by 8 percent effective July 1, 2011. At that time the
combined grant and CalFresh benefit will be 72 percent of
poverty in high-cost counties and 71 percent in low cost
counties.
Further Reduction. In addition, Chapter 8 imposes additional
graduated 5 percent reductions for child-only and safety-net
cases when families reach five, six, and seven years of cumulative aid.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
4
State of California
Health and Human Services Agency
California Department of Social Services
Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau
Public Assistance Facts and Figures
For the Month of
November 2012
Cash Grant Programs
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)
Foster Care (FC)
Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP)
General Relief (GR)
Non-Cash Grant Programs
Federal Food Stamp Program (FS)
California Food Assistance Program (CFAP)
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)
PLEASE NOTE: THIS REPORT CONTAINS PRELIMINARY PROGRAM DATA FROM REPORTS
NOT YET RELEASED AND MAY NOT MATCH SUBSEQUENTLY PUBLISHED REPORTS.
State of California
California Department of Social Services
Health and Human Services Agency
Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau
Public Assistance Facts and Figures
Monthly Caseload Trend Graphs with Current Month Value Displayed
November 2012
January 16, 2013
AFDC/CalWORKs Monthly Caseload - July 2002 through November 2012
700,000
560,022
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
O
J 2012
J
A
O
J 2011
J
A
O
J 2010
J
A
O
J 2009
J
A
O
J 2008
J
A
O
J 2007
J
A
O
J 2006
J
A
O
J 2005
J
A
O
J 2004
J
A
O
J 2003
J
A
O
J 2002
-
Foster Care Monthly Caseload - July 2002 through November 2012
120,000
100,000
80,000
64,532
Data obtained from the CWS/CMS system
beginning 7/1/01. Data prior to this period
was obtained from the CA 237 FC Monthly
Caseload Movement Reports.
60,000
40,000
20,000
O
A
J 2012
J
O
A
J 2011
J
O
A
J 2010
J
O
A
J 2009
J
O
A
J 2008
J
O
A
J 2007
J
O
A
J 2006
J
O
A
J 2005
J
O
A
J 2004
J
O
A
J 2003
J
O
J 2002
-
SSI/SSP Monthly Caseload - July 2002 through November 2012
1,350,000
1,289,525
1,300,000
1,250,000
1,200,000
1,150,000
1,100,000
1,050,000
1,000,000
Data available at: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/
O
J 2012
J
A
O
A
J 2011
J
O
A
J 2010
J
O
A
J 2009
J
O
A
J 2008
J
O
J 2007
A
J
O
J 2006
A
J
O
J 2005
A
J
O
J 2004
A
J
O
J 2003
A
J
O
J 2002
950,000
State of California
California Department of Social Services
Health and Human Services Agency
Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau
Public Assistance Facts and Figures
Monthly Caseload Trend Graphs with Current Month Value Displayed
November 2012
January 16, 2013
General Relief Monthly Caseload - July 2002 through November 2012
180,000
148,495
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
O
J 2012
J
A
O
J 2011
J
A
O
J 2010
J
A
O
J 2009
J
A
O
J 2008
J
A
O
J 2007
J
A
O
J 2006
J
A
O
J 2005
J
A
O
J 2004
J
A
O
J 2003
J
A
O
J 2002
-
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Monthly Caseload July 2002 through November 2012
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
O
A
J 2012
J
O
A
J 2011
J
O
A
J 2010
J
O
A
J 2009
J
O
A
J 2008
J
O
A
J 2007
J
O
A
J 2006
J
O
A
J 2005
J
O
A
J 2004
J
O
A
J 2003
J
O
J 2002
1,886,715
IHSS Monthly Caseload - July 2002 through November 2012
500,000
405,270
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
Data available at: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/
O
J 2012
A
J
O
A
J 2011
J
O
A
J 2010
J
O
J 2009
J
A
O
A
J 2008
J
O
J 2007
A
J
O
A
J 2006
J
O
J 2005
A
J
O
J 2004
A
J
O
A
J 2003
J
O
J 2002
-
State of California
Health and Human Services Agency
California Department of Social Services
Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau
Public Assistance Facts and Figures
November 2012
January 16, 2013
Recipients
Average Monthly Benefits
November
2012
Change from
October
2012
1,352,173
1,062,942
560,022
$260.2
(1,836)
1,713
1
($2.1)
(0.1)
0.2
0.0
(0.8)
(3.2)
(2.7)
(2.7)
(3.3)
Two Parent Families - persons……………………………………
Children………………………………………………………………
Cases……………………………………………...…………………
Payments ($ in millions)………..…………………………….……
Zero Parent Families - persons……………………………………
Children…………………………………………………….………
Cases………………………………………….……………………
Payments ($ in millions)……………………………………………
All Other Families - persons…………………………………………
Children………………………………………………………………
Cases………………………………………………………………
Payments ($ in millions)……………………………………………
TANF Timed-Out - persons.....................................................…
Children…………………………………………………….………
Cases………………………………………………………………
Payments ($ in millions)………………………………...……...…
Safety Net - persons …………………………………………………
Children………………………………………………………………
Cases………………………………………………………………
Payments ($ in millions)……………………………………………
182,111
105,405
49,993
$28.4
(1,631)
(666)
(429)
($0.4)
(0.9)
(0.6)
(0.9)
(1.5)
360,869
360,869
183,926
$77.6
4,773
4,773
2,239
$0.7
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
(7.0)
(5.2)
(6.2)
(6.4)
(3.5)
(3.5)
(3.7)
(4.2)
564,524
374,264
226,790
$111.3
82,510
60,245
27,803
$14.1
162,159
162,159
71,510
$28.8
(6,043)
(3,504)
(2,254)
($2.2)
(140)
(95)
(155)
($0.2)
1,205
1,205
600
$0.1
(1.1)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(2.0)
(0.2)
(0.2)
(0.6)
(1.5)
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.2
(4.3)
(3.8)
(3.2)
(4.1)
14.7
15.4
11.9
11.3
(2.2)
(2.2)
(0.9)
(0.8)
Foster Care (FC) Program - children ………………………………
Relative Home placements.........................................................
Foster Family Agency placements…………..……………………
Foster Family Home placements……………………………………
Group Home placements…………………………….………………
Guardian Home placements........................................................
Supervised Independent Living placements b/……………………
Other/Unspecified Home placements.........................................
Other Facility placements............................................................
Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary
Payment (SSI/SSP) - persons c/……………………………….……
Aged……………………………………………………………………
Blind……………………………………………………………………
Disabled………………………………………………………………
SSI/SSP payments ($ in millions)…………………………………
64,532
23,882
16,695
5,937
8,820
6,924
1,048
995
231
360
210
(128)
12
19
46
137
39
25
0.6
0.9
(0.8)
0.2
0.2
0.7
15.0
4.1
12.1
1.5
4.8
(6.4)
(2.5)
1.5
1.0
#DIV/0!
(7.1)
(10.5)
1,289,525
358,226
19,014
912,285
$787.3
(1,609)
(24)
(60)
(1,525)
($8.4)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(1.1)
General Relief (GR) - persons…………………………………….…
148,495
(3,251)
(2.1)
Programs
California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) - persons a/…………………
Children…………………………………………...…………………
Cases…………………………………..………………………………
CalWORKs payments ($ in millions)………………………………
California unemployment rate (seasonally adjusted)……………………
California population on assistance d/…………………….……………
a/
b/
c/
d/
Percent Change from
October November
2011
2012
November
2012
$
November
2012
9.8%
October
2012
10.1%
November
2011
11.3%
7.5
7.6
7.7
$
464.68
467.65
568.55
569.93
421.98
424.23
490.75
495.45
507.18
509.78
402.68
402.16
0.6
(0.4)
(1.1)
1.0
2.4
508.27
652.15
649.87
495.97
637.67
640.00
(1.6)
219.67
219.81
All CalWORKs data is for cash grant cases only.
Supervised Independent Living is a newly added placement type as of October 2012.
Estimate based on preliminary data from the Social Security Administration.
Persons receiving CalWORKs, Foster Care, SSI/SSP and GR.
Data represents the most current statistics available at the time of publication. Current month data includes prior month(s) data if current
month is not reported timely by the County. Prior period data is updated to include the most current information, including County
reported changes/updates.
For additional information, visit our web site at: http://www.cdss.ca.gov/research/
November
2011
State of California
Health and Human Services Agency
California Department of Social Services
Data Systems and Survey Design Bureau
Public Assistance Facts and Figures
November 2012
January 16, 2013
Recipients
Programs
November
2012
Average Monthly Benefits
Percent Change from
Change from
October
2012
October
2012
November
2011
November
2012
$
CalFRESH and California Food Assistance Program (CFAP)
Persons……………………………………….…………………………
Assistance:
persons……………………………….…………
households…………………………….…………
Nonassistance: persons……………………………………………
households…………………………….…………
Expenditures paid ($ in millions)……………….……………………
CalFRESH
Persons……………………………………….…………………………
Assistance:
persons……………………………….…………
households e/…………………………….………
Nonassistance: persons……………………………………………
households e/…………………………….………
Expenditures paid ($ in millions)……………….……………………
California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) f/
Persons………………………………………………..………………
Assistance:
persons……………………………………………
households g/……………………………………
Nonassistance: persons……………………………………………
households g/……………………………………
Expenditures paid ($ in millions)………………………………...…
November
2011
$
Average Benefit Per Person
4,148,434
797,451
315,884
3,350,983
1,570,831
$618.8
1,079
365
190
714
(1,338)
($3.8)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
(0.1)
(0.6)
6.0
(5.0)
(4.8)
9.0
11.7
5.4
149.17
149.98
4,108,567
791,659
314,148
3,316,908
1,556,527
$614.0
1,024
363
191
661
(1,287)
($3.4)
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
(0.1)
(0.6)
6.0
(5.0)
(4.8)
9.0
11.7
5.5
149.44
150.20
39,867
5,792
1,736
34,075
14,304
$4.9
55
2
(1)
53
(51)
($0.4)
0.1
0.0
(0.1)
0.2
(0.4)
(6.7)
4.2
(4.7)
(4.7)
5.8
6.6
(1.2)
121.76
128.40
Average Cost Per Person
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)
405,270
Persons receiving paid services……………………………………
Hours of service paid………………………………………………… 34,381,583
$363.2
Expenditures paid ($ in millions)…………...………………………
(12,282)
(1,548,693)
($17.6)
(2.9)
(4.3)
(4.6)
(3.3)
(2.2)
(2.0)
896.19
884.29
e/ Combined count of Federal only and a portion of Federal-CFAP mixed households based on the percentage of Federal persons in Federal-CFAP mixed households.
f/ Combined count of State only and a portion of Federal-CFAP mixed households based on the percentage of State persons in Federal-CFAP mixed households.
g/ Based on paid cases for the month.
CalWORKs Non-Exempt Assistance Unit Maximum Aid Payment (MAP) and CalFRESH Allotment
MAP (Effective 07/01/12 - 06/30/13)
Eligible persons
in the same home
Region 1
Region 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10+
$317
516
638
762
866
972
1,069
1,164
1,258
1,351
SNAP Allotments (10/01/12-09/30/13)
Eligible persons in the
Maximum
SNAP household
SNAP Allotment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
each additional person
$300
490
608
725
825
926
1,016
1,109
1,198
1,286
SSI/SSP Grant Levels (Effective 01/01/12)
Total
Individual
$
Independent………………………………………….…………………………………
Household of another………………………………..……….…………………………
Non-medical Out-of-Home Care……………………..…………………………….…
Couple
Independent, neither member blind…………………..………………………………
Independent, one member blind………………………………………...……………
Independent, both members blind…………………………………..…………………
Non-medical Out-of-Home Care………………………………………..…………...…
Aged or Disabled
SSI
$
$200
367
526
668
793
952
1,052
1,202
1,352
150
SSP
$
Blind
SSI
Total
$
$
SSP
$
854.40
625.17
1,110.00
698.00
465.34
698.00
156.40
159.83
412.00
909.40
680.17
1,110.00
698.00
465.34
698.00
211.40
214.83
412.00
1,444.20
xxx
xxx
2,220.00
1,048.00
xxx
xxx
1,048.00
396.20
xxx
xxx
1,172.00
xxx
1,591.20
1,535.20
2,220.00
xxx
1,048.00
1,048.00
1,048.00
xxx
543.20
487.20
1,172.00
Public Policy Example
SENATE COM M ITTEE ON B UDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
Mark Leno, Chair
Bill No:
Author:
As Amended:
Consultant:
Fiscal:
Hearing Date:
AB 1471
Committee on Budget
June 26, 2012
Jennifer Troia
Yes
June 26, 2012
Subject: Budget Act of 2012: Human Services Omnibus
Summary: Contains the necessary statutory and technical changes to implement the Human
Services provisions of the Budget Act of 2012.
Proposed Law:
This bill includes the following provisions:
1) CalWORKs: Makes changes to the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids
(CalWORKs) program that result in savings of approximately $469.1 million General Fund,
as follows:
a) Changing Time Limits and Work Participation Requirements:
i.
Modifies the number of welfare-to-work participation hours to conform to current
federal requirements and eliminates requirements related to participation in core and
non-core activities.
ii.
Changes welfare-to-work requirements applicable to CalWORKs recipients, on or
after January 1, 2013, by creating a new 24-month time limit. Unless otherwise
exempt from participation, applicants and recipients would receive 24 months of
welfare-to-work services and activities under current state rules, and would then be
required to meet federal participation requirements to access the remainder of the
months toward their 48-month lifetime time limit. Provides that this 24-month time
limit is a prospective change, and that months of assistance prior to January 1, 2013
shall not be counted toward the 24-month time limit.
iii.
Further, specifies that months of assistance during which the recipient has been
sanctioned or excused from participation for good cause, qualifies for an exemption,
or is a custodial parent who is under 20 years of age and who has not earned a high
school diploma or its equivalent, do not count toward the 24-month time limit.
Additionally, months during which the recipient is participating in job search or
assessment, is in the process of appraisal, or is participating in the development of a
welfare-to-work plan, as specified, do not count toward the 24-month time limit.
Finally, months in which the recipient is meeting federal participation requirements
do not count as a month of activities for purposes of the 24-month time limit.
iv.
Provides for notice requirements to recipients regarding the 24-month time limit that
explain the process by which recipients may claim exemptions from, and extensions
to, the 24-month time limit when the individual applies for aid, during the recipient’s
annual redetermination, and at least once after the individual has participated for a
-1-
total of 18 months, and prior to the end of the 21st month, that count toward the 24
month time limit.
v.
Requires the Department of Social Services (DSS), in consultation with stakeholders,
to convene a workgroup to determine further details of the noticing and engagement
requirements for the 24 month time limit, and to instruct counties by way of an allcounty letter, followed by regulations, no later than 18 months after the effective date
of January 1, 2013.
vi.
Provides that counties may extend assistance for no more than 20 percent of
recipients, as specified, upon expiration of the 24-month time limit. Requires DSS to
consult with stakeholders and to develop and issue instructions on the process for
implementing these extensions and calculating this 20 percent limitation.
vii.
With respect to extensions of the 24-month time limit, allows recipients to submit
evidence that the following circumstances exist: a) is likely to obtain employment
within six months; b) has encountered unique labor market barriers preventing
employment; c) has achieved satisfactory progress in an educational or training
program; d) needs additional time to complete a welfare-to-work activity included in
the case plan due to a diagnosed learning or other disability; or e) has submitted an
application to receive SSI disability benefits and is awaiting an established hearing
date. Subject to the 20 percent limitation described above, requires counties to grant
extensions of time under these circumstances, unless they determine that the evidence
presented does not support the existence of the circumstances. If the county makes
such a determination and there is a hearing disputing the denial of an extension,
establishes that the burden of proof is on the county to establish that the extension
was not justified.
viii.
Provides that a county may, again subject to the 20 percent limitation, grant an
extension of the 24-month time limit if, as a result of information already available to
a county, the county identifies that a recipient meets the circumstances described
above.
ix.
States that it is the Legislature’s intent that the state shall work with the counties and
other stakeholders to ensure that the extension process will be implemented with
minimal disruption to the impending completion of welfare-to-work plans for
recipients.
x.
Provides that for a recipient who is not exempt or granted an extension pursuant to
the above, and who does not meet the federal participation requirements between
their 24th and 48th month time limits, the same policies regarding the removal of the
adult portion of the grant and opportunities for engagement and curing are available
as those applicable to sanctions pursuant to current law. For purposes of this new
policy, however, states that the procedures referenced shall not be described as
sanctions.
b) Changes Related to Exemptions from Work Participation Requirements:
i.
Extends the current temporary exemptions provided in relation to the reduction in the
county single allocation from July 1, 2012 until January 1, 2013, when these
exemptions will sunset. These temporary exemptions are provided to a parent or
other relative who has primary responsibility for personally providing care to one
-2-
child who is from 12 to 23 months of age, inclusive, or 2 or more children who are
under 6 years of age. These exemptions are commonly referenced as “temporary
young child” exemptions.
ii.
States that reduced funding, including a reduction to the county single allocation, for
the period between July 1, 2012 and January 1, 2015, will result in insufficient
resources to provide the full range of welfare-to-work services during that time
period.
iii.
Extends through January 1, 2015, the option for a county to redirect funding
appropriated for CalWORKs mental health employment assistance services and
CalWORKs substance abuse treatment services, from and to other CalWORKs
employment services that are necessary for individuals to participate in welfare-towork activities.
iv.
Requires counties to reengage recipients who had received the temporary young child
exemption in welfare-to-work activities starting January 1, 2013 and over a period of
two years (unless those recipients are otherwise exempt from participation).
Recipients will not be required to participate until the county welfare department
reengages them.
v.
Creates a similar, ongoing, one-time young child exemption for caregivers of a child
24 months of age or younger, and provides that a month during which this exemption
applies would not be counted as a month of receipt of aid for the recipient.
c) Other Changes:
i.
Requires DSS to convene a workgroup to identify best practices and other strategies
to improve early engagement and barrier removal efforts, as specified, and to report
back to the Legislature by January 10, 2013 regarding its related actions and
recommendations.
ii.
Requires DSS to annually update the Legislature regarding the changes made by this
bill to the CalWORKs program, and to contract with an independent, research-based
institution for an evaluation and written report, with specified contents, which would
be provided to the Legislature by October 1, 2017.
iii.
Exempts a CalWORKs assistance unit that does not include an eligible adult from
periodic reporting requirements other than annual redetermination and makes
corresponding changes.
iv.
Restores the earned income disregard policy to that which existed prior to the
enactment of the 2011-12 Budget Act, allowing a participant to retain $225 and $.50
of each dollar thereafter of monthly earnings (altering the 2011-12 policy that allows
retention of $112 and $.50 of each dollar). This policy will apply to the entire
caseload with earnings and will take effect October 1, 2013.
v.
Delays the effective date for the Work Incentive Nutritional Supplement (WINS)
program until January 1, 2014 and reduces the amount of the WINS benefit, which is
an additional food assistance benefit for each eligible food stamp household, from
$40 to $10 per month.
Correspondingly, delays dates associated with the
development of policy toward a pre-assistance employment readiness system
-3-
(PAERS) program and other options that may benefit the CalWORKs program, as
specified.
2) Phase-in and Reporting Related to Cal-Learn Program: Restores the operation of
intensive case management services provided through the Cal-Learn program within
CalWORKs. State funding for these services was suspended during the 2011-12 fiscal year.
From July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013, inclusive, authorizes counties to provide full or partial
year funding, depending on the pace of their progression to full implementation, by April 1,
2013. Additionally requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to annually report
specified information related to the program to the budget committees of the Legislature. The
phase-in approach included in this bill provides for savings in 2012-13 of approximately $10
million GF.
3) Child Support Payment Trust Fund: For the 2012-13 fiscal year only, authorizes money
in the Child Support Payment Trust Fund accounts to be invested in specified securities or
alternatives that offer comparable security, including mutual funds and money market funds.
The provision does not authorize an investment or transfer that would interfere with the
objective of the Child Support Payment Trust Fund.
4) Continues Suspension of Child Support Incentive Payments : Extends the suspension of
performance and health insurance-related incentive payments to local child support agencies
(LCSAs) through the 2014-15 fiscal year. Existing law, in the absence of a suspension,
would award the ten highest performing counties with an additional share of collections and
require the state to provide payments to LCSAs of $50 per case for obtaining 3rd -party health
coverage or insurance of Medi-Cal beneficiaries.
5) Continues Suspension of Fingerprint Fee Exemption: Extends the suspension of a
prohibition on the state charging fees for fingerprinting in order to conduct background
checks of applicants for licenses to operate specified community care facilities that serve
children.
6) Changes to Implementation Date for Sales Tax on Support Services: Delays the date
when the state can implement existing law related to the extension of the sales tax to apply to
support services (i.e., homecare)- from July 1, 2010 to January 1, 2012. Under existing law,
corresponding supplementary payments would be made to specified providers of those
services.
7) Repeals Sections Related to Statewide Eligibility and Enrollment Processing: Repeals a
statute that was enacted as part of the 2009 Budget Act that required the Administration to
develop a statewide eligibility and enrollment determination process for the California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), Medi-Cal, and Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as CalFresh or food stamps) programs, and directed
the development of a comprehensive plan with respect to a centralized eligibility and
enrollment process. Subsequent statutes changes related to the Statewide Automated Welfare
System have obviated these requirements. Thus, this repeal resolves potential statutory
conflicts with respect to the state’s information technology systems and enrollment processes.
8) Moratorium on Group Home Rate-Setting: Permanently extends the moratorium on the
licensing of new group homes or approvals of specified changes for existing providers, with
some allowable exceptions. This moratorium was initially established as a part of the 2010
Budget Act. New provisions further limit, for one year, exceptions for any programs with
rate classification levels below 10 to those associated with a program change.
-4-
9) Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Dual Agency Rates : Requires annual adjustment by
changes in the cost of living (as measured by the California Necessities Index) of rates
payable for care and supervision of children who are dually eligible for the Child Welfare
Services and Developmental Services systems. This change is consistent with changes made
last year to foster family home and related rates in response to litigation. Under the
provisions of this bill, the change to dual agency rates would begin retroactively with the
2011-12 fiscal year.
10) Repeal of Medication Dispensing Machine Pilot: Repeals statute that required the
Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to establish a medication dispensing machine
pilot project for certain at-risk Medi-Cal recipients. This pilot project was also associated
with a reduction, with some exceptions, in authorized hours of service for In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS) recipients that would have been triggered if savings from the
pilot had not been achieved. This bill would repeal both of these policies.
11) Extension of 3.6 Percent Reduction in Authorized IHSS Hours: Extends, for the 2012-13
fiscal year, an existing reduction of 3.6 percent in authorized IHSS hours that is otherwise
scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2013. This reduction is anticipated to save approximately
$58.9 million GF in 2012-13.
12) Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) Sharing: Authorizes local public
authorities or nonprofit consortia to share Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)
background reports with DSS in specified circumstances. More specifically, allows the
public authority or nonprofit consortia to share this information when an individual who is
applying to become an IHSS provider has requested from the department an exception to a
prohibition on his/her ability to become a provider because of his/her criminal record.
13) Rate-setting for IHSS Public Authorities: Extends by one year, to the 2013-14 fiscal year,
the required time by which DSS, in consultation with designated stakeholders, must develop a
new rate-setting methodology for estimating the costs of public authorities with respect to
administration of specified requirements related to the state’s IHSS program.
14) Rehabilitation Appeals: Eliminates the Rehabilitation Appeals Board, which currently
serves as the entity which hears appeals by applicants for, or clients of, programs provided by
the Department of Rehabilitation. Instead provides for fair hearings to be held before an
impartial hearing officer and establishes standards, training, and due process requirements
related to those fair hearings.
15) Kids’ Plates Funding: Amends existing requirements related to distribution of funds in the
Child Health and Safety Fund that are derived from the Have a Heart, Help Our Kids
specialized license plate program (Kids’ Plates). Specifically, redirects $501,000 from child
abuse and injury prevention programs to support specific Department of Social Services’
(DSS) responsibilities related to child day care licensing.
16) Child Welfare Services Automation System: Requires DSS to use specified funding
included in the 2012 Budget Act for the next steps necessary to move forward with the
recommendation of the Child Welfare Automation Study Team (CWAST) to proceed toward
procuring a new information technology system to replace the existing Child Welfare
Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS). Further, requires the Office of Systems
Integration (OSI) and the department to report the results of these activities, in addition to key
milestones and anticipated timelines, to the Legislature by March 1, 2013, for review during
2013 budget hearings.
-5-
17) Assessment of Automation Costs: Requires DSS and the Office of Systems Integration
(OSI) to have a qualified 3rd party conduct a cost-reasonableness assessment of specified
costs related to changes in the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS). More
specifically, requires this assessment with respect to costs that will be proposed by the project
vendor in order to consolidate two of the state’s three existing consortia systems into one new
consortium (leaving the state with a two-consortium system). This migration will consolidate
data and functionality for the counties currently served by Consortium-IV into the Los
Angeles Eligibility, Automated Determination, Evaluation and Reporting (LEADER)
Replacement System, which is newly being developed. The cost reasonableness assessment
is intended to assist the state in determining whether the proposed overall costs for this
migration are within range of reasonableness, based on specified factors.
Support: Unknown
Opposed: Unknown
-6-
ARTICLES
California Poverty Rate Highest In
Nation Based On New Census
Department Figures
The Huffington Post
By Aaron Sankin Posted: 11/15/2012 11:06 am EST Updated: 11/16/2012 6:04 pm EST
California has a poverty rate of 23.5 percent, the highest of any state in the country, according to figures
released this week by the United States Census Bureau.
The only other geographic region with an equivalent poverty rate is the District of Columbia, with 23.2
percent. The second most poverty-stricken state was Florida, at 19.5 percent.
The recognition of California's shockingly high poverty rate comes as a part of a shift in the way the
Census Bureau measures its data. When the government began examining poverty back in the early
1960s, the line for determining who fell underneath the threshold was determined solely by looking at
food costs.
In the decades since, there's been increasing criticism this benchmark, as it doesn't take into account tax
rates and assistance programs such as food stamps, child care expenses and medical costs. In examining
its most recent data, the Census Bureau considered these previously ignored factors, deemed the
"supplemental poverty measure."
These new metrics have yielded quite different results than in past years. Under the traditional definition
of poverty, for example, California's rate is 16.3 percent.
"We're seeing a very slow recovery [nationally], with increases in poverty among workers due to more
new jobs which are low-wage," University of Wisconsin-Madison economist Timothy Smeeding told the
Associated Press. "As a whole, the safety net is holding many people up, while California is struggling
more because it's relatively harder there to qualify for food stamps and other benefits."
The Golden State's jump between the supplemental and conventional measures was the largest swing of
any state, and the Sacramento Bee attributes it to California's high cost of living.
"There are several important differences between the official and supplemental poverty measures,"
explained Census Bureau economist Kathleen Short in a statement. "For instance, the supplemental
measure uses new poverty thresholds that represent a dollar amount spent on a basic set of goods
adjusted to reflect geographic differences in housing costs. The official poverty thresholds are the same
no matter where you live."
Under the supplemental measures, the national poverty rate jumped by a full point up to 16.1 percent, or
just under 50 million individuals. The poverty rate for minors dropped from 22.3 percent down to 18.1
percent, while the rate for seniors (ages 65 and above) nearly doubled to 15.1 percent.
Education Week: New Student-Poverty Measures Proposed for National Tests
Published Online: December 11, 2012
Published in Print: December 12, 2012, as NAEP Seeks to Test New Measure of Student Poverty
New Student-Poverty Measures Proposed for National Tests
Proposed indicators go broader, deeper
By Sarah D. Sparks
Washington
Aiming to get a clearer picture of how students' home and community
resources affect their academic achievement, America's best-known K12 education barometer, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, is building a comprehensive new way to gauge
socioeconomic status .
The new measure, being developed by the National Assessment
Governing Board and the National Center for Education Statistics, is
intended to look beyond a traditional measure of family income to a
child's family, community, and school supports for learning.
"This issue has just been on the burner for so, so long," said Maria V.
Ferguson, the executive director of the Washington-based Center on
Education Policy. "When NAGB starts talking about it, that does
elevate it to a place where it could be part of a bigger policy debate,"
she said. "I wonder if the folks at NAGB are hoping this could be an
opening salvo into a bigger conversation about how [different SES
measures] might affect other programs."
The governing board commissioned eight researchers in education,
economics, statistics, human development, and sociology that have
been working on the new indicators since 2010. The panel released its
initial proposal at a NAGB meeting here Nov. 29.
"We rapidly learned that socioeconomic status contains multiple
dimensions and categories that don't neatly collapse back to 'low'
versus 'high,' " said Charles D. Cowan, the chief executive officer of
the San Antonio-based research group Analytic Focus and a member of
the governing board's expert panel. "Over the last 10 to 15 years,
there's been an explosion in the data available" on student
characteristics, Mr. Cowan said. "Perhaps now is the time to think
about alternative measures of SES simply because now we are able to
think about it."
Beyond Free Lunch
For decades, the universal proxy for students' socioeconomic status—
for NAEP and nearly every federal education and child-health program
—has been just such a high-low indicator: eligibility for subsidized
under the National School Lunch Program.
meals
Socioeconomic Status
Reconsidered
The National Assessment Governing Board is
considering a new method of identifying a
student’s socioeconomic status when
Federal food aid does capture a huge swath of students in poverty:
disaggregating the results of the National
The school lunch program alone provides meals for more than 31
Assessment of Educational Progress. NAEP
million children, at reduced cost to those living at or below 185 percent researchers now rely primarily on a
of the federal poverty line , and free to those who are at or below student’s eligibility for the National School
http://www.edweek.org/...ic_ep.h32.html?tkn=QMZF%2BRA46kM9ELQh0DGNOnC06otQ6MdJPimG&cmp=clp-edweek&print=1[1/4/2013 3:30:00 PM]
Education Week: New Student-Poverty Measures Proposed for National Tests
130 percent of the poverty line or who are homeless, in foster care, or Lunch Program—which as of 2011 provided
in certain other programs. In 2012 in the lower 48 states and the
free or low-cost meals to more than 31
million students in poverty each day—as a
District of Columbia, children living in a family of four on $40,000 or
proxy for socioeconomic status. This
less a year would be eligible for reduced price meals; the free-lunch
traditional indicator is bolstered by
cut-off for the same family would be $30,000.
From a research and policy perspective, however, experts say food-aid
eligibility gives an incomplete picture of the resources of students in
poverty, and no information about students who don't qualify.
Moreover, those poverty counts notoriously underrepresent students as
they get older and more self-conscious about applying for free or
reduced-price lunch.
"There are many problems regarding the use of free and reduced-cost
lunch," said Henry M. Levin, a research panelist and an economics and
education professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, who is
now on sabbatical at Peking University in Beijing.
"It does not distinguish in a sensitive way differences along the entire
spectrum of SES," he noted in an email to Education Week. "Even for
the poor or relatively poor, there are large differences" within the
range of free-lunch eligibility.
background questions on home possessions,
such as washing machines, encyclopedias,
and mobile phones.
Proposed New “Core” SES Indicators
• Family income and indicators of home
possessions and that have been shown to
be linked to educational access, such as
Internet availability and number of books in
the home
• Parents’ educational attainment
• Parents’ occupational status
Potential “Expanded” SES Indicators
• Family: For example, family structure,
stability, and the presence of extended
family and other supportive adults
• Neighborhood: Including the
The governing board has tried in the past to fill in the gaps using the
concentration of poverty or linguistic
background questionnaire students complete along with NAEP,
isolation, the percentage of unemployed
according to William Ward, a senior research scientist for assessment
adults, and the availability of museums,
at NCES, which administers NAEP. But some of those questions have
parks, or safe walking routes
become outdated or have not been found to be relevant to a child's
• School: The aggregate SES composition of
real socioeconomic status.
students at the school the child attends, as
"We used to ask, 'Do you have a washer-dryer?' but now everyone has distinct from the neighborhood SES level
a washer-dryer," Mr. Cowan said. "We used to ask, 'Do you have a
cellphone?' Now, do any of your students not have a cellphone?"
More Than Income
The updated measure of socioeconomic status will look at broader
resources and learning supports, Mr. Cowan said.
It will start with the "big three": the family's income, parents' level of
educational attainment, and whether and where they are employed.
This year's administration of NAEP has also tried out new background
questions, including how long the child has lived in the United States,
how many family members live with the child, and how many adults in
the home have a job.
Potential Additional Context Indicators
• Physical stressors: Local rates of illness
or environmental problems
• Psychological stressors: Levels of crime
in the school and community
• Psychological protectors: Student
perception of parent involvement and
expectations
SOURCE: National Assessment Governing
Board
Because elementary students in particular may have difficulty
RELATED BLOG
identifying these, the governing board is considering supplementing the
data with information from the U.S. Census Bureau's American
Community Survey, an annual study of a representative sample of
3.5 million households nationwide that asks about family structure,
employment and income, transportation, and other details.
The NAEP student survey would still include questions about home
possessions that research has shown to be related to student
http://www.edweek.org/...ic_ep.h32.html?tkn=QMZF%2BRA46kM9ELQh0DGNOnC06otQ6MdJPimG&cmp=clp-edweek&print=1[1/4/2013 3:30:00 PM]
Education Week: New Student-Poverty Measures Proposed for National Tests
achievement, such as access to the Internet and the number of books
Visit this blog.
in the home, Mr. Ward said. But the board is considering
supplementing the "core" SES measures with other indicators of resources in the child's neighborhood and school
that could highlight differences between students living at the same income level in different areas.
For example, an 8th grader in New York's Spanish Harlem neighborhood could still have access to libraries and
museums, while a peer in rural southern Utah may have no local library but live a bike ride away from national
parks.
Indicators of school and neighborhood supports also may be pulled from administrative data and from the Census
Bureau, such as the degree of concentration of poverty or linguistic isolation, the average educational degree
earned, and the employment levels in the neighborhood.
The governing board panel plans to present its proposed socioeconomic indicators at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association in April before piloting their use in 2014 and reporting the results in
2015.
Vol. 32, Issue 14, Pages 6-7
http://www.edweek.org/...ic_ep.h32.html?tkn=QMZF%2BRA46kM9ELQh0DGNOnC06otQ6MdJPimG&cmp=clp-edweek&print=1[1/4/2013 3:30:00 PM]
The latest on California politics and government
June 26, 2012
California bill details welfare-to-work time limit exemptions
California welfare-to-work recipients could receive six-month extensions beyond a new 24-month time
limit for aid if they are making progress in a treatment program, on the verge of finding work or struggle
with a learning disability, according to new bill language released today.
The guts of the welfare-to-work compromise between Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic lawmakers is
contained in Assembly Bill 1471. The deal struck last week would generally cut off aid and services to
CalWORKs recipients if they cannot find employment after 24 months.
The new rules take effect starting in January. Months on aid before January do not count against the new
time limit. Democratic lawmakers insisted on a series of exemptions that would protect one-fifth of welfare
recipients who go past that time limit without finding a job. AB 1471 allows counties to grant extensions in
six-month blocks to people who meet any of the following criteria:
• Are likely to obtain a job within six months.
• Face a difficult job market with high unemployment.
• Have made "satisfactory progress" in a program such as vocational education or drug treatment that
would increase the likelihood of finding a job.
• Needs additional treatment for a learning disability or other diagnosed problem.
• Has filed to receive SSI benefits for disability.
• "Other circumstances as determined" by the Department of Social Services.
The bill caps extensions at 20 percent of a county's caseload that has exhausted the 24-month time limit.
Counties and program advocates have until November 2013 to figure out how to calculate that 20
percent.
AB 1471 also requires counties to presume that a CalWORKs recipient qualifies for an extension -- and
enables that recipient the right to a hearing if denied for additional time in the program.
"It's not perfect, and we wouldn't design it this way if we were writing it," said Mike Herald, a lobbyist with
the Western Center on Law and Poverty. "But it was at least an attempt to address our concerns about
folks with special needs who would be harmed."
Herald added that because only a fifth of the people who use up their time can receive an extension, "in
our judgment harm is going to occur to some of these families because we picked an arbitrary number out
of the air."