"Welfare Options, Set #4 (G.A.)"
Welfare Reform Options, Set #4
May 9, 1997
Note To Subscribers: The Welfare Reform Conference Committee is reviewing
options for a host of issues. This post is the fourth of a series of updates
for the Senate Health and Human Services WWW page (and mailed to all
subscribers). The ISSUE is identified, and then each option is laid out.
This set of issues looks at General Assistance.
ISSUE
State buy out of all, part or none of the State mandated and county-funded
General Assistance (GA) program.
OPTION A
Repeal the existing mandate and permit counties to have the flexibility to
provide GA benefits, if any, in an amount and under standards of their own
choice.
ANALYSIS
Current law requires counties to provide aid and county funded health care to
indigents who have no other means of support. These programs are commonly
known as General Assistance programs. State law establishes a floor for the
level of assistance with certain allowable reductions if a county can
establish that it is suffering significant financial distress. Counties are
also permitted to limit assistance to 3 months in any 12 month period for
employable recipients, reduce the grant for the value of medical care and/or
shared housing and screen recipients for substance abuse and require
participation in drug treatment programs as a condition of aid. Counties are
free, within very broad parameters, to establish conditions of eligibility.
As of September 1996 there were approximately 147,000 GA recipients statewide
with county GA caseloads ranging from 0 to 88,000 cases. The recipients tend
to be unemployed single adults. Approximately 40 percent are females and the
average ages is about 40. Approximately 55 percent are employable and many
are disabled and awaiting approval for federal Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) disability benefits. If an SSI applicant is successful in obtaining SSI
benefits the county is reimbursed by the federal government for the GA
benefits paid while the application is pending pursuant to the Interim
Assistance program.
Statewide the average grant amount is $218 per month, down from $307 per month
five years ago. Not all counties provide recipients with cash grants. Some
provide vouchers or pay vendors, such as landlords, directly. County GA
benefits to individuals (cash and in-kind) range from $96/per month to $410
per month.
A repeal of the GA mandate would permit counties that do not wish to provide
aid to pay as little as they like or nothing at all. Due to migration issues
counties would be under pressure to pay no more than neighboring counties and
there would be a race to the bottom.
The counties net GA expenditure in September 1996 was just under $30 million.
County monthly GA expenditures range from a low of less than $1,000 to a high
of nearly $17 million. The Legislative Analyst s Office estimates that
counties will spend $355 million on grants in 1996-97.
ISSUE
State buy out of all, part or none of the State mandated and county-funded
General Assistance (GA) program.
OPTION B
Establish a state county cost sharing ratio requiring the State and counties
to share the costs of grants and administrative costs.
ANALYSIS
In order to relieve the counties of all or a portion of their GA costs the
Legislature could create a cost sharing ratio based on current program funding
ratios or create a new funding ratio. The Legislative Analyst s Office
estimates that counties spend about $140 million annually to administer the
program. However, much of the administrative costs are offset by federal
funds from the food stamp and employment and training programs. Under federal
welfare reform, counties are given greater flexibility to run Food Stamp
employment and training programs. Federal funding is expected to increase
from $79 million in 1996 to $90 million in 2002.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
State buy out of all, part or none of the State mandated and county-funded
General Assistance (GA) program.
OPTION C
The state pays all of grant and administrative costs of the GA program.
ANALYSIS
In order to relieve the counties of all or a portion of their GA costs the
Legislature could create a cost sharing ratio based on current program funding
ratios or create a new funding ratio. The Legislative Analyst s Office
estimates that counties spend about $140 million annually to administer the
program. However, much of the administrative costs are offset by federal
funds from the food stamp and employment and training programs. In light of
the new federal food stamp restrictions on Able Bodied Adults Without Children
between the ages of 18-50 limiting them to three months of benefits every
three years there may be less food stamp employment and training funds to
subsidize GA administrative costs.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
The ratio of a state/local GA sharing program.
OPTION A
The state pays 80 percent of the costs of grants for the first year on aid,
and counties pay 20 percent. The County share increases to 30 percent for
recipients on aid more than one year. The counties pay 15 percent of
administration costs and are eligible for a 5 percentage point reduction for
positive performance.
ANALYSIS
This is the Legislative Analyst s Office proposal. The counties net GA
expenditure in July 1996 was just under $30 million. The Legislative Analyst
s Office estimates that counties will spend $355 million on grants in 1996-97
and that counties spend about $140 million annually to administer the program.
The additional costs to the state and savings to the counties will depend on
whether any legal immigrants who lose federal SSI benefits are eligible for GA
benefits.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
The ratio of a state/local GA sharing program.
OPTION B
The county pays 70 percent of grant costs and 15 percent of administrative
costs. A county s share of cost would not exceed 70 percent of the amount
expended by the county in 1996-97 for non-health benefits, excluding increased
caseload costs.
ANALYSIS
This is the approach in SB 403 (Thompson). This bill creates a statewide GA
program commencing with the 1997-98 fiscal year to provide cash benefits at
$256 for individuals in Region I and $212 for individuals in Region II.
Counties are authorized to supplement the grant levels.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
SB 403 (Thompson)
ISSUE
The ratio of a state/local GA sharing program.
OPTION C
The state pays 95 percent of benefits and 70 percent of administrative costs
GA.
ANALYSIS
The current AFDC sharing ratio for the non-federal share of costs is 95
percent state and 5 percent county for grant costs and 70 percent state and 30
percent county for administrative costs. This shifts the majority of the GA
costs to the state while not eliminating a county share. This could create a
windfall for the counties because funding for GA is include in the Social
Services sub-account under realignment. To the extent the counties are
relieved of responsibility for GA funding, the funds saved by the county could
be used for any purpose.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Uniformity of GA benefits and eligibility requirements across if there is
state/local cost sharing.
OPTION A
Set grants at a level that approximates the average grants in the existing GA
program of approximately $225 per month.
ANALYSIS
This is the approach taken by the Legislative Analyst s Office. GA grants
currently vary quite broadly between $201 per month in some counties to over
$300 in other counties. In July 1996 the average GA grant per case was $225
per month. Although some counties would pay more and others would pay less
under this formula, it would fix current statewide costs at the existing
level.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Uniformity of GA benefits and eligibility requirements across if there is
State/local cost sharing.
OPTION B
Regionalize grants pursuant to the current TANF region definitions and set
grant levels at $256 per month for region I and $212 per month for region II.
Allow counties to supplement grant amounts with county funds.
ANALYSIS
This is the grant amount established in SB 403 (Thompson). It adopts the
existing two regions used for establishing the grant amount in the AFDC
program. There are 17 counties in Region I. These counties are the higher
housing cost counties. The remaining 41 counties are in Region II. The GA
grant level in Region II is about the state average GA grant. The proposed
grant amount is lower than the one-person AFDC grant of $279 in Region I and
$266 in Region II.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Uniformity of GA benefits and eligibility requirements across if there is
State/local cost sharing.
OPTION C
Establish grants at a rate consistent with TANF grants for employable
recipients. Base grants for unemployables on a standard of need for actual
housing and food costs.
ANALYSIS
The GA advocates proposal would set GA grants differently for employable and
unemployable GA recipients. The one-person AFDC grant of $279 in Region I
and $266 in Region II would be the basis for the grant amount for employable
recipients. This is based on the assumption that employable recipients should
be entitled to the same work and training programs and services that would be
established for the TANF recipients who are employable. For those who are
unemployable grants would be based on an assessment of local housing,
utilities and food costs. This would allow county-by-county differences in
grant amounts based on the standard developed in each county. It would also
reimpose previous GA law which required that GA grant amounts be based on a
study within the county demonstrating actual subsistence costs for housing,
food, clothing, utilities transportation, and medical care.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
GA as the safety net for children and families who exhaust any established
state time limits under TANF.
OPTION A
Continue existing GA law requiring counties to provide benefits to families
who are not eligible for any other benefits.
ANALYSIS
Current law requires counties to provide county funded aid and health care to
indigents who have no other means of support. Under current law any person
who is not eligible for other benefits would be eligible for GA. This would
impose upon the counties the mandate to provide for the needs of a population
for which they had not, by in large, served. Also, under existing GA law
counties have no obligation to provide work or training programs and therefore
safety net recipients would not receive any meaningful services. GA has been
a program directed at adults. Making GA programs responsible for the needs of
children who would potentially lose TANF eligibility would be a major shift in
the program. The major TANF proposals do not propose GA as a safety net for
those who may lose eligibility.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
GA as the safety net for children and families who exhaust any established
state time limits under TANF.
OPTION B
Establish a separate safety net program for families who have exhausted
their time limits. The scope of the safety net program is outlined in the
TANF options.
ANALYSIS
Various TANF options include a safety net for those families who lose their
eligibility either through time limits or sanctions. The safety net would be
state funded and preclude shifting to the counties the costs of families who
are not eligible for TANF. A TANF safety net program should be created and
law amended to specifically exclude otherwise TANF eligible recipients from GA
eligibility.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Groups I and V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Time limits for employable recipients.
OPTION A
Retain existing law allowing counties to limit GA benefits to employable
recipients to three months out of every one year period.
ANALYSIS
Current law allows counties to restrict GA eligibility for employable
recipients to three months out of every twelve month period. Thus far at
least six counties have opted to time limit benefits for employable
recipients. It is up to the counties to define employability. Estimates vary
as to the exact number of the GA caseload that is employable. The LAO
estimates the number to be around 55 percent. By retaining existing law
counties would be able to exclude about half of their GA caseload for three-
fourths of the year.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
Time limits for employable recipients.
OPTION B
Impose a two year time limit for employable recipients with the same
exceptions and exemptions provided under TANF.
ANALYSIS
Current law allows counties to restrict GA eligibility for employable
recipients to three months out of every twelve month period. The LAO proposal
would impose a statewide time limit. Rather than impose a limit of three out
of every twelve months the LAO proposal establishes a two year period of
eligibility with essentially the same exceptions and extensions that would
exist for TANF recipients. The LAO proposal would be a strict two year limit
although recipients would continue to be eligible for job search services and
indigent health service.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Time limits for employable recipients.
OPTION C
Do not impose any time limit on GA but continue to require participation in a
workfare project as a condition of eligibility.
ANALYSIS
Under current law counties can require GA recipients to perform on a workfare
project as a condition of eligibility. Most counties operate workfare
projects where recipients work off their GA grant at minimum wage. Other
counties also require in addition to or in place of workfare requirements that
employable recipients conduct active job searches. Individuals who fail to
comply with either workfare or job search requirements are sanctioned from the
program. Thus, as long as a recipient works for his or her grant and conducts
a job search he or she can retain eligibility. This ensures that recipients
who are not employed for no fault of their own are eligible to receive
benefits.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
Combining GA and TANF programs.
OPTION A
Integrate the GA program with the TANF program to maintain policy consistency
and equitable treatment.
ANALYSIS
Current law requires counties to provide aid and county funded health care to
indigents who have no other means of support. State law establishes a floor
for the level of assistance with certain allowable reductions if a county can
establish that it is suffering significant financial distress. Counties are
also permitted to limit assistance to 3 months in any 12 month period for
employable recipients, reduce the grant for the value of medical care and/or
shared housing and screen recipients for substance abuse and require
participation in drug treatment programs as a condition of aid. Counties are
free, within very broad parameters, to establish conditions of eligibility and
thus eligibility criteria vary widely between the counties.
The LAO proposal integrates GA and TANF with the state assuming responsibility
for both program components. Because both programs have the same basic
objectives-- to assist recipients in achieving self-sufficiency-- combining
both programs would permit the state to maintain policy consistency across the
programs. Combining the programs would also result tin in more equitable
treatment of recipients by eliminating difference in county grants and
eligibility criteria. A uniform system would avoid migration effects where
GA recipients move to counties that offer higher grants or different
eligibility criteria.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Combining GA and TANF programs.
OPTION B
Retain a separate GA program.
ANALYSIS
This option would maintain current law which would permit counties to continue
designing and operating their own GA programs. It allows the greatest amount
of latitude to the counties and permits them to establish standards of
eligibility at a local level. Separate GA programs may also have migration
effects where recipients seek out higher grant levels or different eligibility
criteria.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Availability of services beyond a cash grant to GA recipients.
OPTION A
Provide the same services as provided under TANF to GA recipients when GA
grants are fully or partially state funded.
ANALYSIS
Current law permits counties to establish GA services but does not mandate
them. Counties vary widely on the type and scope of services available to
recipients. Many counties require job searches but do little to assist a
recipient to prepare for work through training or education. Other counties
have job programs but nothing like what is available through the GAIN program.
At least for employables, the goals and objectives for moving parents with
children into employment apply equally to GA recipients. Making the GAIN
program available to GA recipients would equalize the treatment of recipients
of the different programs.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Availability of services beyond a cash grant to GA recipients.
OPTION B
Retain existing law that does not preclude counties from providing any
additional services.
ANALYSIS
Current law permits counties to establish GA services but does not mandate
them. Counties vary widely on the type and scope of services available to
recipients. Many counties require job searches but do little to assist a
recipient to prepare for work through training or education. Counties could
continue to decide which services they would chose to offer GA recipients.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
Screening GA applicants and recipients for substance abuse.
OPTION A
Retain current law allowing counties to screen applicants and recipients for
substance abuse upon a reasonable suspicion of drug dependency.
ANALYSIS
Current law allows counties to screen applicants and recipients for drug abuse
or alcoholism if there is a reasonable suspicion the applicant or recipient is
dependent upon illegal drugs or alcohol. If it is determined that the
applicant or recipient is dependent upon illegal drugs or alcohol he or she
can be required to participate in a treatment program as a condition of
eligibility. The current screening requirement permits the broadest
constitutionally allowable means of determining dependency and getting the
recipient into a treatment program. The current law has been in effect since
January 1, 1997 and has not been fully implemented by counties who wish to
screen applicants and recipients.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
Screening GA applicants and recipients for substance abuse.
OPTION B
Eliminate reasonable suspicion requirements for substance abuse screening.
ANALYSIS
Current law allows counties to screen applicants and recipients for drug abuse
or alcoholism if there is a reasonable suspicion the applicant or recipient is
dependent upon illegal drugs or alcohol. If it is determined that the
applicant or recipient is dependent upon illegal drugs or alcohol he or she
can be required to participate in a treatment program as a condition of
eligibility. This option would remove the requirement that there be a
reasonable suspicion of dependency and would allow random drug testing by
counties of GA recipients. Random testing of this type would be
constitutionally suspect.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Financing GA benefits with funds from sources other than DSS and the counties.
OPTION A
Fund GA for parolees through the Department of Corrections.
ANALYSIS
Current law requires counties to provide aid and county funded health care to
indigents who have no other means of support. Counties pay 100 percent of the
costs from their general fund. Counties assert that a sizable portion of
their caseload are parolees that they must provide aid for while they
integrate themselves back into the community. Department of corrections
should be required to pay the counties share of costs of parolees if counties
remain responsible for any part of GA costs.
This would be a 100 percent General Fund cost.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE
Requiring GA recipients to participate in community service.
OPTION A
Retain existing law permitting counties to require GA recipients to perform in
workfare projects.
ANALYSIS
Current law permits counties to require recipients, as a condition of
eligibility for GA benefits, to perform on workfare projects. Recipients are
ordinarily required to work their GA grant off at minimum wage. Many counties
operate workfare projects and fund them in large part with federal food stamp
employment and training funds. This option would allow counties to continue
to require community service as a condition of eligibility.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
Not required.
ISSUE
Requiring GA recipients to participate in community service.
OPTION B
Retain existing law and establish health and safety standards for GA workfare
participants comparable to those required under state and local laws for other
workers.
ANALYSIS
Current law permits counties to require recipients, as a condition of
eligibility for GA benefits, to perform on workfare projects. Recipients are
ordinarily required to work their GA grant off at minimum wage. Many counties
operate workfare projects and fund them in large part with federal food stamp
employment and training funds. However, there are few if any standards
established by the counties for participants. This option would require that
there be statewide standards for health and safety of participants that are
comparable to those required under state and local laws for other workers.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.
ISSUE 10
Requiring GA recipients to participate in community service.
OPTION C
Establish work requirement consistent with TANF program work requirements.
ANALYSIS
Current law permits counties to require recipients, as a condition of
eligibility for GA benefits, to perform on workfare projects. Recipients are
ordinarily required to work their GA grant off at minimum wage. Many counties
operate workfare projects and fund them in large part with federal food stamp
employment and training funds. However, there are few if any standards
established by the counties for participants. This option would require
counties have the same standards in GA workfare projects that exist in TANF
workfare placements.
OTHER WORK GROUPS IMPLICATED
Work Group V
BILLS THAT PROPOSE THIS OPTION
None known, legislation required.