CalWORKs: relative caregivers.
Summary
Existing law requires each county to provide cash assistance and other social services to needy families through the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program using federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, state, and county funds. Existing law specifies the amounts of cash aid to be paid each month to CalWORKs recipients. Existing law establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care. Under existing law, a child who is placed in the approved home of a relative is eligible for AFDC-FC if he or she is eligible for federal financial participation in the AFDC-FC payment, as specified. Existing law establishes the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program in counties choosing to participate, for the purpose of making the amount paid to relative caregivers for the in-home care of children placed with them who are ineligible for AFDC-FC payments equal to the amount paid on behalf of children who are eligible for AFDC-FC payments. This bill would revise provisions of the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program to, among other things, authorize a relative caregiver to receive payments on behalf of a child pursuant to the program, regardless of whether the child resides, or will be residing, outside of the participating county pursuant to his or her placement. The bill would establish procedures for the distribution of payments to relative caregivers, as specified. The bill would also require that an infant supplement, as specified, be paid under the CalWORKs program and the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program to a teen parent who is placed with his or her child in the home of a relative caregiver and is the subject of a voluntary placement agreement or subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, as provided. Under existing law, if the county welfare department places a child who is in temporary custody or subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court with a relative or nonrelative extended family member, as defined, the county is required to evaluate and approve or deny the home for purposes of AFDC-FC eligibility. This bill would instead require the county, immediately following the placement of a child in the home of a relative, to initiate an application for CalWORKs on behalf of the child using a shortened CalWORKs application and simplified CalWORKs eligibility standards. The bill would require the county, concurrently with initiating the application for CalWORKs, to evaluate and approve or deny the home for purposes of AFDC-FC eligibility, and, if the child is found to be ineligible for AFDC-FC, would require the placing agency to initiate and complete the applications for, and determine eligibility for, the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program, as specified, and screen the child for eligibility for the federal Supplemental Security Income program. The bill would also require the county social worker or eligibility worker to explain to the relative, either in person or by telephone, the eligibility requirements and benefit amounts for the AFDC-FC and CalWORKs programs, and the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Option Program if the county has opted into the program, as well as any actions the relative could take to affect the child's eligibility for those programs. By requiring county employees to provide these services, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires that every youth who is in foster care and nearing emancipation be screened by the county for potential eligibility for the federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. This bill would require that every youth who is in foster care and has been determined to be ineligible for AFDC-FC benefits be screened by the county for potential eligibility for the SSI program. By imposing this additional duty on counties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law continuously appropriates moneys from the General Fund to defray a portion of county costs under the CalWORKs program. This bill would instead provide that the continuous appropriation would not be made for purposes of implementing the bill. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Bill status
passed
3 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2015
Committee Review
Aug 2015
Assembly Passage
Jun 2015
Senate Passage
Governor
Introduced Feb 19, 2015
Last action Aug 27, 2015
Floor votes · Assembly Jun 2, 2015
How they voted
73–0
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 75
Jun 2, 2015
D
Democratic50
100% Yea
I
Independent1
100% Yea
R
Republican24
91% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
19
Key actions
5
Committee
10
Amendments
3
Aug 27, 2015
Upper · Passed
In committee: Held under submission.
upper
Aug 17, 2015
Committee
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
upper
Jul 16, 2015
Committee
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Jul 16, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 14).
upper
Jun 11, 2015
Committee
Referred to Com. on HUMAN S.
upper
Jun 2, 2015
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (73-0-2)
assembly
May 28, 2015
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
lower
May 28, 2015
Introduced
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 28).
lower
May 20, 2015
Committee
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
lower
Apr 29, 2015
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (April 28). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 27, 2015
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.
lower
Mar 24, 2015
Lower · Passed
In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.
lower
Mar 2, 2015
Committee
Referred to Com. on HUM. S.
lower
Feb 20, 2015
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 22.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Ken Cooley
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 423
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 423. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline