Welfare Reform in the Golden State:
How Will California Implement the New Federal Programs?

Number two in a series of background papers on welfare reform

Introduction: A nation - and a state - in transition

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton in August of 1996 represents the largest single change in federal provisions since the "Great Society" years of the Lyndon Johnson administration. This legislation completely replaces the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Block Grant (TANF). Taking direct aim at assumptions of entitlement in assistance programs, these reforms disqualify populations from eligibility, set time limits on participation, require states to transition recipients employment, and change the rules for a host of special programs.

California is about to enter a second phase in this historic policy drama, as states are required to offer their detailed implementation packages for Federal approval. Governor Pete Wilson has proposed the California Temporary Assistance Program (CalTAP). The proposal must meet with approval from the California Legislature, and many of its details are under discussion at the time of this writing. According to a recent analysis in the Los Angeles Times, the battle lines are drawn around six points: the amount of aid recipients will get, time limits for eligibility, work requirements, work exemptions, aid to immigrants, and whether the state will share the costs of General Assistance with counties. The article states that the Democrat-controlled Legislature is expected to adopt a package which "would clash head-on with Wilson's earlier proposal".

The conference committee working on Welfare reform has laid out some positions on aspects of the Governor's package; it is considered very unlikely that the two sides will have worked out their differences in time for the scheduled July 1 submission of a state implementation plan. If no plan has been submitted, the Federal waiver under which California's welfare system currently operates will stay in force until its scheduled expiration date.

This is ACSA's second background paper on welfare reform. The first one described the Federal legislation and identified issues of concern for school leaders. This second paper will, after a summary of TANF provisions, describe the Governor's CalTAP proposal and compare it with various positions developed by the Legislative Conference Committee. Education related issues and policy positions of educational organizations will also be discussed.

The information in this paper has been developed from documents produced by:

• California County Superintendents Educational Services Association
• County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services
• California Department of Education
• California School Boards Association
• Department of Health Services
• The Governor's Welfare-to-Work Action Team
• Legislative Analyst's Office
• Office of the Governor
• Public Policy Institute of California
• Welfare Policy Research Group, UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research
• The Legislative Welfare Conference Committee
   

Summary of PRWORA and TANF: The Federal Legislation

Title I: Block Grants for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

The AFDC program is eliminated, along with the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program and the Emergency Assistance Program. They will be superseded by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant (TANF). States determine eligibility criteria, but must adhere to the following Federal requirements:

No TANF benefits to any family including an adult who has received 5 years' worth of benefits during his or her lifetime. Someone in each family must begin working a specified number of hours per week after two years of receiving assistance (ranging from 20 to 30 hours). Work can be subsidized or not, and can include on-the-job training, community service, up to a year of training, or high school if the recipients are teenagers. English acquisition, citizenship preparation, and GED preparation do not towards work requirements.

Unmarried minor parents must live with an adult or in an adult-supervised setting, and participate in school or training to receive assistance.

Title II: Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

This section redefines disability for children, removing maladaptive behavior as a medical criterion in its listing of impairments. Existing cases must be reexamined to determine eligibility under the new criteria.

Title III: Child Support

States must operate a child support enforcement program, including establishment of a central registry of child support orders and expedited enforcement procedures. States are required to use wage garnishment, revocation of drivers' or professional licenses, and asset seizure to enforce payment of child support orders.

Title IV: Restricting Welfare and Public Benefits for Aliens

States are required to ban legal aliens from eligibility for food stamps and SSI until citizenship. Exceptions are refugees and asylees (for the first five years), veterans, and people with 40 quarters of Social Security eligibility. The Act explicitly recognizes the right of all immigrants to a "basic public education" as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe.

Title V: Child Protection

States are authorized to make foster care maintenance payments using IV-E funds on behalf of children in for-profit child care institutions. Federal matching funds will be provided for statewide automated child welfare information systems, and a national study of child abuse and neglect. States are required to consider giving preference to kinship placements, provided the relative meets state standards.

Title VI: Child Care

This section retains current Federal requirements relating to health, safety, and immunization standards for Federally funded child care programs. Single parents with children under six years of age will not be penalized for failure to engage in work activities if they cannot find child care.

Title VII: Child Nutrition Programs

All individuals, including immigrants, who are eligible for free public education are also not ineligible for free and reduced school meals.

Reimbursement rates for summer school programs, family and group day care homes are restructured. Startup and expansion grants for school breakfast programs are eliminated.

Title VIII: Food Stamps and Commodity Distribution

Most legal immigrants are banned. Maximum benefit levels have been reduced, and redefines income calculations to reduce eligibility. A new work requirement is established for individuals between 18 and 50 years of age without dependent children.

Title IX: Miscellaneous

Title XX Social Services Block Grant funding will be reduced in each year until 2002.

Starting in 1998, funds will be provided for abstinence education, which is explicitly defined in the Act. States are also authorized to perform drug tests on welfare recipients and to sanction recipients who test positive for controlled substances.

Summary of CalTAP: The Governor's Implementation Proposal

  The CalTAP proposal sets the stage for a vigorous, even enthusiastic, implementation of the new welfare limits. PRWORA eliminated AFDC, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Program, and the Emergency Assistance Program; CalTAP also eliminates the California Work Pays program. In many cases, provisions of CalTAP go beyond the language contained in PRWORA. Highlights of the provisions:

• Time-Limited Aid. Current recipient families, headed by able-bodied adults on aid at the time this program becomes law will be limited to aid for 24-months in any 36-month period. New applicants will be limited to 12- months in any 24-month period. There will be an overall 60-month lifetime limit for most families.
• Grant Structure and Work Incentives. The grant structure is based on work earnings rather than on need. Families may retain a portion of earned income as an incentive to increase work participation, while unearned income will be deducted dollar-for-dollar from grants. Disability income will be counted as earned income. Grants will be reduced after six months for families or individuals not meeting the work incentive requirements.
• Work Expectation. Adult single parents will be required to work or participate in a required activity for 32 hours per week. One of the adults in a two-parent family must work or participate in a required activity for 35 hours per week.
• Work Readiness Screening. For those who do not find work immediately, there will be a work readiness screening and a participation plan that will contain a variety of activities depending on their barriers to employment.
• Parental Responsibility. CalTAP will require, as a condition of eligibility for aid, that children be enrolled in school and have required immunizations. Additionally, non-cash aid will be required in lieu of cash aid, when parents are abusing alcohol or drugs and not providing for the needs of their children.
• Child Support Requirements. Until paternity is established, aid will only be provided for children. Not knowing the whereabouts of or information about the absent parent (Social Security Number, current address, place of employment) will not be accepted as an excuse; no aid will be provided to single parents in those cases. If the custodial parent does not fully cooperate with the District Attorney on all child support issues, aid will be denied to the entire family.
• Family Grant and Work Incentives. Grant levels will be based on family size and will vary based upon program participation. Maximum grant levels will be the same as those in effect as of January 1997. The grant will not increase if the size of the family increases.
• Teen Parents. Minors will be required to live at home as a condition of eligibility. Counties will be allowed to continue to operate the Cal-Learn program or to develop an alternative teen parent program which meets prescribed program outcomes. Counties will be strongly encouraged, and funding provided, to include a home visitation component for the teen parents in the program.
• Relationship with Counties. Within a context of state-established eligibility standards, time limits and grant levels, counties will have broad authority to organize and deploy program resources to achieve program goals. Administration and employment services funding will be block granted to counties based upon current sharing ratios. Aid payments will continue to be funded jointly. Counties will receive 25 percent of any program savings that exceed a county-specific benchmark.
• Child Abuse. Prior to terminating aid to any family due to time limits or failure to comply with minimum program requirements, the county will first determine whether the children of such families are exposed to abuse or neglect.
• Safety Net. CalTAP will provide non-cash safety net benefits for the children of families who may still need some governmental support once their time limits expire.
• Legislative Issues Related To The CalTAP Proposal
  CalTAP is more stringent than TANF required in a number of ways. Grant levels will be lower than they would have been with AFDC, and the time limits set by CalTAP are more rigid. Grants would initially be set at levels based on (but lower than) the old AFDC formulas, and would then be reduced after six months as an incentive to look for work.

Time limits on receipt of assistance proposed in CalTAP would be the strictest in the nation. While adults already on welfare could continue to receive aid for up to 24 months out of a three year period, new recipients would be able to receive only 12 months of aid in any two years.

Legal immigrants would be eligible for limited assistance, as would citizen children of immigrants. Undocumented parents of citizen children would meet the work requirements through community service, since they cannot legally hold jobs.

Work participation hours are higher under CalTAP than under TANF; instead of 20 to 32 hours per family depending on circumstances, the expectation would be for 32 to 35 hours of work or work related activities per week. Obviously, this requirement will have a noticeable impact on demand for child care services.

Some other issues under discussion at the Conference Committee

Grants and Time Limits

The joint conference committee's proposal would set grant rates at the same levels as before, and not have grants reduced after six months on aid. The group "flatly rejected ... as too harsh" the Governor's time limits. The committee would like to see a three-month evaluation of the recipient's job search effort, including development of a contract to be signed by the recipient agreeing to training, treatment, or job search activities as specified by the caseworker. This would be followed by up to 18 months to fulfill the contract.

At the end of the contract period, counties would have the option to extend aid in cases of high unemployment.

The conference committee also favors retaining California's GAIN job training and education package, which the CalTAP proposal eliminates due to concerns over its cost and effectiveness.

The five-year lifetime maximum on benefits and provision of a safety net for families willing but unable to find work are items agreed upon by both sides, though the means to accomplish these differ markedly. CalTAP would provide continued non-cash benefits only for children; the conference committee would impose paid community service in lieu of required work for families meeting the terms of their contracts, and would continue benefits for such families.

Child Care Provision and Finance

The legislators are considering whether to provide a direct pay arrangement with child care providers; at the same time, there are calls for mandatory local child care planning councils to set policy, coordinate availability of services, and establish local fee structures.

In the area of quality control for child care services, proposals have been developed which would specify new programs to educate consumers about identifying high quality providers for child care and training child care providers. One way to expand the supply of high quality placements is to provide funding to expand school-based child care programs in any school which has in excess of 65% eligibility rates for free or reduced price meals.

Job Training

Anticipating a greatly increased demand for vocational training rising from the work requirements of the Act, legislators propose lifting the enrollment cap on adult education and ROC/P programs to the extent that increased enrollment is caused by TANF recipients fulfilling their work requirements through training at these programs. This money would come out of Proposition 98 funds. In order to receive any of the new moneys, a local consortium of adult education providers (schools and community colleges) would be required to plan allocation of the funds and priorities for programs in the local area.

New funds would be allocated for curriculum revision necessitated by TANF, and also for provision of support services (counseling, etc.) for noncredit students who previously did not qualify for these services. However, these funds would be allocated to the community colleges only.

Exemptions from Work Requirements

While CalTAP left room for very few exemptions from the work requirements, the committee considered a more lenient approach. Mothers of newborns would have two years to stay at home; families with children under 11 would be exempt if child care was not available. Wilson's plan allowed only 12 weeks for newborn care, and made no other childcare related exemption available.

Truancy Enforcement

The new laws require that a state keep teens in school in order for a family to receive welfare payments. No determination has been made about allocation of the responsibility to track and enforce these provisions. Some proposals place the responsibility with the District Attorney's office in each county government.

Juvenile Probation

Under debate is whether TANF funds should be allocated to counties to provide prevention and intervention services for juvenile offenders. Some legislators favor using TANF funds to replace Federal Emergency Assistance funds which were available until 1996 for these purposes.

Immigration

Both parties are concerned about the possible effects of cutting off benefits to legal immigrants, and have been pressuring Congress and the President to revise that clause of PRWORA. Congress has shown some interest only in reconsidering the withdrawal of Supplemental Security Income for the elderly, blind, and disabled. The committee has discussed creating a California program to assist poor elderly immigrants who depend on food stamps; the Wilson administration prefers to continue seeking Congressional relief.

General Assistance

The aid of the last resort, general assistance is a county-funded program with a state-imposed mandate to help anyone not eligible for other assistance. County administrators, worried about a flood of new applicants as welfare recipients reach the end of their time limits, have requested that the state share in the costs of this program. The Governor's office prefers to lift the mandate, leaving counties to help indigents or not at their own judgment, and at their own expense.

Issues for Education

In relation to the concerns identified by the Conference Committee as well as the outlines of the entire welfare reform package, both the California School Boards Association and the California Department of Education have developed principles they believe should guide implementation of welfare reform. These fall into four categories: meeting the direct needs of children, contributing to the health and viability of families, collaboration and allocation of responsibilities among service providers, and avoidance of inappropriate bureaucratic burdens on schools.

The needs of children

Both CSBA and the CDE call for a "hold harmless" priority which would guarantee adequate nutrition, shelter, supervision, and medical care for all children. Both organizations call for all children to have access to food and medical care and to all safety net programs such as SSI/SSP which have historically served children. All children should be safe and supervised, and high quality childcare and effective teen parenting programs should be universally available.

The CDE takes a similar tack, with its call for comprehensive child development services coordinated through local Child Care Planning Councils, parent education programs, child care provider training, and pregnant/parenting teen services to ensure school completion. School based nutrition services, access to health and mental health care, and school-linked support services are all part of the CDE's prescription for youth services. Like CSBA, the CDE calls for disabled students to continue receiving health and mental health services which could be lost through the tightening of eligibility for Supplemental Security Income.

The Department of Education opposes tying welfare eligibility to school attendance, declaring that, "Parents, school districts, county offices of education, law enforcement, and the judicial system have the responsibility to ensure that California's compulsory education laws are met by every student ... all children should be treated equally under the law regardless of their economic status..."

The Viability of Families

CSBA sees the need to move families off welfare by providing effective job training. Elimination of enrollment caps on adult education and ROC/P programs and enhanced funding for these programs are needed, they say. They oppose the provisions of the law which forbid counting basic education and ESL coursework towards work requirements, and call for collaboration between K-12 and Community Colleges to upgrade the skills of California's needy families.

The Department of Education emphasized the need for families to have access to high-quality childcare, and note that the law identifies them as the lead agency in expansion of childcare services. Parent information about and opportunities for involvement with childcare programs, access to job training as well as literacy and basic education, are all supported by the CDE. Access to ESL and citizenship instruction is also favored by the CDE, though they stop short of calling for these to satisfy work requirements.

Allocation of Responsibilities

Creation of local councils to coordinate child care and other services is a feature of both CDE and CSBA positions, and is backed by many legislators as well. In addition, CSBA calls for "All public and private agencies ... to collaborate at all levels" while the CDE pledges that they are "committed to collaborating with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the Governor's Office of Child Development and Education (OCDE) and the Legislature" in implementing the Child Care and Development Block Grant.

Bureaucracies

Educators are understandably wary of any reform which may create new demands on understaffed and overburdened practitioners of school administration. Collection of data regarding students and their families, establishment of or participation in the administration of new or expanded child care programs, and new attendance enforcement requirements are identified as potential sources of new administrative burdens. In addition, the need to remain conscious of changes affecting families served by the schools and possible loss of categorical funds are areas of concern. To the degree that categorical programs designed to serve students and families in poverty are tied through funding formulae to welfare eligibility, these programs could be weakened just when they should be strengthened.

In general, these two organizations have expressed concerns about some of the public policy choices made possible by PRWORA, and agree about the need to keep the needs of California's children highly visible in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms of welfare reform implementation design. It seems that different visions of what is possible and what is desirable have been placed in competition in Sacramento. CSBA and the Department of Education are substantially in agreement that the students of the state, their families, and the educators attempting to serve them deserve the consideration of those on all sides of the issue.

Conclusion

Like every state, California now faces a series of decision points, priority issues, and tests of its community values in the design of welfare reform implementation. For the Governor and the Legislature to successfully balance beliefs about the nature of poverty, hopes for the perfectibility of society, and commitment to investment in the next generation will require a degree of finesse and daring rarely seen in state government. If all California's children are to emerge from this era of sea change unscathed and ready to succeed in a world with fewer and different safety nets, educators and local communities will need to apply vigilance, persistence, and care in advocating for and participating in the design of new programs and the redesign of existing ones.

It is too soon to predict how the issues outlined in this paper will be resolved in California's public policy arena; however, it is now clear that the answers reached in the Legislature will form new questions which local communities, including schools, will be required to answer.

Excerpts: CSBA Position Statement on State Welfare Reform

The state welfare reform plan adopted in California must ensure that:

All children have access to food and medical care.

Good health and nutrition promote effective learning, therefore all children shall have access to nutrition programs and health care irrespective of adult welfare time limits, immigration status, changes in eligibility requirements or reductions in program allocations.

All safety net programs continue to serve children.

Children suffering from physical or emotional conditions which require medical or support services should receive assistance from the Supplemental Security Program/State Supplemental Payment program (SSI/SSP) and other programs designed for these circumstances. Schools should not be responsible for the full cost of services identified through the IEP (Individualized Education Program) process due to changes associated with welfare reform. Children who previously qualified for SSI/SSP assistance should not be deemed unqualified under new welfare reform rules unless the condition is no longer present. Removing assistance in these cases will jeopardize a child's ability to participate in school or place an additional burden on schools to provide those services previously covered under SSI/SSP.

All children are safe and supervised.

Children should have access to safe child care when parents are required to participate in work, education or community service as a condition of family welfare assistance.

Ample resources to increase preschool, teen parenting and childcare programs should be available to schools providing these services.

Adequate numbers of trained childcare providers lessens the dangers for children and reduces the risk for abuse and neglect. Providing appropriate adult supervision will also decrease delinquent and/or hazardous behavior by children and adolescents and promote safe communities.

All families are assisted with job skills.

Providing basic skills, education, ESL and job training to move welfare recipients into paid work is urgently needed due to welfare reform mandates. State imposed caps on enrollment for adult education and ROP/ROC programs should be eliminated and additional funding provided for these services in order for districts to provide services to the maximum number of families. In addition, basic education, ESL and vocational education courses must be included as approved education activities under adult welfare reform rules. Community colleges should be partners in these activities.

All public and private agencies are encouraged to collaborate at all levels.

Collaboration among all public and private agencies is an essential element to effective welfare reform, given that uncoordinated, duplicative services compromise efficiency and drain resources. Effective collaboration maximizes resources throughout the community and provides a single entry point for service. Programs that support coordinated services at the state, county and local levels should be expanded and barriers to collaboration need to be identified and removed.

Welfare eligibility criteria and data collection requirements associated with welfare reform do not create an additional burden to districts, a barrier to services or a loss in categorical funds.

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) entitlement program was eliminated and replaced with a program that is time limited and geared to reducing dependency and costs. Since the funding for many education programs is based on formulas linked to AFDC participation, new funding criteria must be developed. To evaluate the effectiveness of welfare reform, documentation of services and recipient characteristics are required. Gathering this information should not be cumbersome, time consuming or place a fiscal burden on school districts. School districts must not be required to report information that may be used to deny aid.

Excerpts: CDE Principles to Implement Welfare Reform

Guiding Principles to Implement Welfare Reform in Specific Education Policy Areas

A Working Document-California Department of Education

CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT

Principle 1.0

In order to provide comprehensive child development services to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients and the working poor, the California Department of Education (CDE), as the Lead Agency of the Child Care and Development Block Grant, is committed to collaborating with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), the Governor's Office of Child Development and Education (OCDE), and the Legislature.

Principle 2.0

High quality child care and development services must be available to families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) that are working, in training, or transitioning off TANF, as well as those families working at low-income jobs and not receiving TANF, in order to assist them in remaining independent of welfare assistance. Teen parent TANF recipients who must now participate in educational activities leading to high school graduation in order to continue receiving TANF must also have quality child care and development services.

Principle 3.0

Local Child Care Planning Councils play an important role in planning for local child care needs and determining local child care priorities.

Principle 4.0

California should support and fund the collection and analysis of comprehensive child care and development data to ensure the successful delivery of services to California's families and children.

Principle 5.0

Parents must have the necessary information to appropriately select quality child care and development services for their children.

Principle 6.0

Parent involvement and education is a crucial component in child care and development programs.

Principle 7.0

Child care program staff must receive adequate compensation in order to provide the necessary continuity of quality care for children.

Principle 8.0

All providers, including TANF recipients and license-exempt providers who wish to pursue a career in child care and development, either by becoming a family child care home provider or working in a center-based program, should receive appropriate professional training.

Principle 9.0

Children in license-exempt subsidized care must be in a safe environment.

CHILD NUTRITION

Principle 10.0

There is a demonstrated link between nutrition and educational achievement. Because hungry children have a difficult time learning, California must ensure that all children, without regard to citizenship or immigrant status, have access to nutritious meals, on a consistent basis to assist them to achieve their maximum educational potential.

PREGNANT/PARENTING TEENS

Principle 11.0

All pregnant/parenting teens should have access to a quality educational program in a supportive and flexible environment that includes services necessary to achieve academic success. Teen parents should have access to school-linked or school-based child care to ensure the healthy development of their infants and children.

Principle 12.0

Pregnant/parenting youth and adults under age 21 (22 years if receiving special education services) participating in an educational program which leads to a high school diploma or its equivalent should be exempt from the five-year lifetime maximum grant limit as long as they are full-time students.

Principle 13.0

Immigrant teens need full access to reproductive and preventive health services and to prenatal care.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Principle 14.0

Non-educational agencies should continue to support health and mental health services for disabled children who have lost their eligibility for services based on the loss of cash assistance. Current recipients of cash assistance (SSI/SSP and AFDC) who are twenty-one years of age or less should continue to have access to the full range of services provided by non-educational agencies.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Principle 15.0

Parents, school districts, county offices of education, law enforcement, and the judicial system have the responsibility to ensure that California's compulsory education laws are met by every student, parent or guardian. Regular school attendance is critical to the success of all K-12 pupils. There should be no linkage between parents receiving welfare benefits and their children's school attendance, because all children should be treated equally under the law regardless of their economic status.

COORDINATED SCHOOL-LINKED SERVICES

Principle 16.0

School-linked integrated health, mental health, social, education and other support services should be maintained, strengthened, and expanded.

JOB TRAINING, LITERACY AND BASIC EDUCATION

Principle 17.0

All TANF recipients should have the opportunity to participate in a formal education and training plan that would aid in overcoming barriers to employment and provide the educational services necessary for financial independence. As needed, all TANF recipients should have access to literacy, training, basic education, GED preparation, job training classes, counseling and other services as provided in the plan. Local public education entities, including adult education, Regional Occupational Centers/Programs (ROC/P), and community colleges should have sufficient resources to serve all recipients that need these services

ESL/CITIZENSHIP

Principle 18.0

Non-citizen legal residents should have equal access to English-as-a-second language and citizenship courses to ensure that the greatest number of legal non-citizen residents attain citizenship and become productive citizens

SUBSTITUTE FOR AFDC

Principle 19.0

Because AFDC status no longer exists to be used as a part of education program funding formulas or to determine eligibility requirements, changes to these formulas or eligibility requirements should not cause any child who is currently receiving or would be receiving such educational services to be disqualified or denied access.

June 30, 1997